Liam Byrne: I have made it my policy not to discuss specific individual cases on the Floor of the House, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case if he would find it convenient. Generally, it is the policy of the Border and Immigration Agency to enforce decisions when an independent judicial process has concluded that somebody does not have the right to be in this country, and that it is safe for them to go home. Obviously, I look with particular care at cases from Zimbabwe, given the despicable nature of the regime there.

Liam Byrne: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will have looked very closely at those immigration regulations, referred to as statutory instrument no. 1003; however, if he looks at them again he will notice that they say no such thing. The Government are still able to consider all deportation cases, whether the individual is from the European Union or not.
	May I take the right hon. Gentleman's mind back to the free movement of people directive, which was laid before the House? I do not think that any party prayed against it, and therefore I assume that it has all-party support, if not the support of all Members. That directive sets out our policy for deporting people from the EU. We will consider people from the EU for deportation if their offences are serious, and I anticipate that we will deport a good 300-plus this year alone.

Liam Byrne: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the time that he has taken to brief me on the troubling circumstances of the individual case about which he talked to the House at some length earlier this year. If we are to rebalance the criminal justice system and the immigration system in favour of the victim, it is important that we disclose information when we are able to do so. I hope to put in place a new policy to do so on request from right hon. and hon. Members within the next month.

Liam Byrne: There are close arrangements are for dealing with matters between devolved Administrations. Obviously the detention estate available in Scotland is run by the Border and Immigration Agency, but colleagues in the BIA in Scotland are in close day-to-day contact with officials from the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office.

Damian Green: The Minister's attempts to reassure the House about the deportation of foreign prisoners are pointless unless he can give us accurate figures about how many former foreign prisoners are still at large in the UK and how manyare still under lock and key. He may be aware that when I asked how many former foreign prisoners were in young offender institutions, the former prisons Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, replied that the data
	"is not available without disproportionate cost".—[ Official Report, 8 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 1093W.]
	If Ministers cannot say how many former prisoners are still locked up, the Minister needs to clarify whether the Government really do not know, which would be alarming, or know but will not tell us—which would be disgraceful. Which is it?

Jeremy Corbyn: In the Home Secretary's consultations over the period of detention without trial for terror suspects, will he bear in mind the fact that many of us feel that 28 days is already rather too long for detention without trial, and that the idea of extending the period to as long as 90 days could be counter-productive in respect of gaining the co-operation and support of many in the country who wish to be part of the community rather than alienated from it? Detention for 90 days will not bring about the peace and justice that the Home Secretary wants, but will probably drive some people into the arms of those whose arms he would rather they were not driven into.

John Reid: It is always a difficult balance. I do not disguise my recognition that it is difficult for Members to balance the requirements to counter terrorism effectively, to fight it and to ensure national security with the need to ensure that when we strengthen powers we strengthen scrutiny appropriately, too. My hon. Friend says that people may have had misgivings last time we debated the matter, and that is true, but there was a majority view that given the new circumstances, a period of28 days was justified. The events of the past 12 months have shown that to be correct. The consideration of one or two cases last August took 27 or 28 days—right up to the limit. There are about six examples of cases that took that long over the past 12 months. The case for the extension is strengthened. I remain persuaded of the case, but I recognise that others are not. That is why I am trying to consult as widely as possible to see whether we can reach a compromise and consensus.

David Davis: On behalf of the official Opposition, I join the Home Secretary in paying condolences to the family and friends of PC Jon Henry. I am afraid that today's tragic events are a salutary reminder of the risks that policemen and women take on our behalf.
	May I crave your indulgence for a second, Mr. Speaker? I think that this will be the last Home Office questions that the Home Secretary will face. May I take this opportunity of wishing him well? We have had our differences a number of times over the years, but at every turn, I have always accepted that he has done what was in the national interest, in his judgment.
	The idea of allowing the police to interview terrorist suspects after they have been charged is put forward to allow a suspect to be charged earlier and to maximise the chance of conviction. That is less controversial than increasing the time of detention without charge and will represent a major increase in police effectiveness. Will the Home Secretary tell us why it has taken two years to implement the idea?

Police

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that the figures he quoted are last year's figures. The latest figures show an increase in the number of road police. He will know, too, that we take road policing very seriously which is why, for the first time, we included it in the national community safety plan, which is an important step forward. Automatic number plate recognition systems are being used successfully by a large number of forces, so the message on roads policing is: policing the roads is important, because it helps to disrupt criminals who have to travel. I agree with him on that, and we have taken steps to deal with the problem.

Nicholas Clegg: May I endorse the expressions of condolence to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Jon Henry, following his terrible death today?
	Just as important as arrest rates is what happens after arrest. Is the Minister aware that figures revealed by the BBC today show that 8,000 sexual offenders have been released on caution. That is only the tip of the iceberg, however, as there was a 160 per cent. increase in the number of cautions issued for violence offences in the same period. Does the Minister agree that that is a grave affront to the basic principlethat justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done, and that it is a direct consequence ofthe Government's reckless expansion of so-called summary justice and the bombardment of the police with endless illogical targets?

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing to the attention of the House the excellent work of the  Lowestoft Journal and its Crimestoppers page, which seems to be having a dramatic impact on Lowestoft, especially the report of no burglaries that he highlighted. The important point made my hon. Friend—we should draw attention to it because of its relevance to the rest of the country—is the fact that successful neighbourhood policing, as he mentioned, involves not only thepolice but the council, schools and health services. Effective neighbourhood management, alongside effective neighbourhood policing, means that we get not only the sort of results in Lowestoft that my hon. Friend described, but similar results across the country.

Kelvin Hopkins: Police constables on patrol put themselves at serious risk every day of their lives on behalf of us and every citizen. That was tragically illustrated in Luton town centre this morning. As a Luton Member, may I add my condolences to those of other Members on behalf my constituents, who depend upon people like Jonathan Henry and others? I pay tribute to him and convey my sympathy to his family. Will my hon. Friend, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, look again at how we can deal with knife crime, which is still too prevalent and at how we can protect police officers in the future?

Tony McNulty: First, I join my hon. Friend in passing on condolences to the family of Jonathan Henryand, indeed, to anyone associated with policing in Bedfordshire, not least in my hon. Friend's home town of Luton. As he says, it was an appalling incident and we all pass on our sympathies.
	On my hon. Friend's broader point, we are doing much on knife crime, but it would be wrong, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the last summit held in Downing street, to assume that it can be dealt with only by legislation by the Government. Yes, it is about legislation, but it is also about culture, awareness and education and some of the responsibility must go to parenting and families. Only by tackling all three of those elements, which we are trying to do, will we get rid of the scourge of knife crime. However, I broadly agree with all the sentiments that my hon. Friend expressed.

Nick Herbert: The definition of front-line policing that the Minister said that he preferred includes time filling in forms. Officers involved in that are not on the front line; they are in a back office. Four years after a previous Home Secretary promised a "bonfire of the paperwork" to free up more police time, the Police Federation says that bureaucracy has got worse, and the Government's own figures show that police officers spend moretime on paperwork than on patrol. Instead of waiting 10 years to set up another review, when will the Government act to cut red tape and get police officers back on the beat, where the public want to see them?

Tony McNulty: As I said to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), it is fundamentally mendacious to assume that the 14 per cent. figure relates only to the time when the police are available and carrying out policing. That is simply not the case. Yes, of course we need to drive down paperwork, and we will be saying to the Flanagan review that we need to do more on targets and wider bureaucracy, but it is not right for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to dismiss as blithely as he does the figure of 63.1 per cent. that I quoted, which I repeat relates to arrests, dealing with incidents, gathering intelligence, responding to 999 calls, carrying out searches, dealing with informants and interviewing suspects, victims and witnesses. I do not doubt that paperwork may be involved, but one does not have to be a genius to work out that any such paperwork probably contributes towards affording our citizens due process under the criminal justice system. I would be happy to find out which part of the criminal justice system the hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of.

Ben Chapman: Is not it absurd that Merseyside police should be refused extra resources for policing the many events during the European capital of culture year of 2008, especially given that Liverpool represents the whole United Kingdom that year and in light of precedent for other events elsewhere? Does my hon. Friend agree with the statement in another place that the people of Merseyside should be so pleased that Liverpool has been honoured in such a way that they should be prepared to forego adequate policing for the duration?

Joan Ryan: May I take the opportunity to congratulate Liverpool on being awarded the status of European capital of culture? It is a fantastic opportunity for Liverpool to show not only Europe but the world what a great city it is.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that all police forces in England and Wales have received sustained increases in finding under the Government. For Merseyside, the increase in total grants is £98 million—a 45.5 per cent. increase—since 1997. Merseyside also has123 more police officers than in March 1997 and the number of police community support officers has doubled in the past six months to 466. The increases have put Merseyside police in a strong position to cope with the additional demands arising from Liverpool's year as European capital of culture. I hope that local authorities and businesses will consider contributing to policing costs, as they stand to reap significant benefits from such investment.

Joan Ryan: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The policing costs are not a sudden or unexpected pressure. Liverpool opted to bid to be the European capital of culture; it was a voluntary decision. One would presume that those responsible chose to bid on the basis that the benefits would exceed the costs. They should factor in the cost of security when they decide to bid. As my right hon. Friendsaid, the administration has known since 2003 that Liverpool would be the European capital of culture. The local police have had plenty of time to prepareand plan, and that is certainly true of the local authority.
	My right hon. Friend knows that the chief constable and the assistant chief constable have already briefed my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police on the policing aspects of the year. He also visited Merseyside—

Richard Benyon: Acceptable behaviour orders may or may not be effective against some burglars, but what is beyond doubt is that many burglaries and other crimes are drug related. The Home Office has rightly taken up concerns about rising crime rates in my area, but at the same time hascut funding to the drug intervention programme by 11.5 per cent. in this financial year—with very little warning to the drug action team or other local drug and alcohol advisory teams. Is that not a bad example of joined-up government?

Vernon Coaker: Before 2003, there was no such thing as a drug intervention programme. Furthermore, the£149 million that I believe we are spending on drug intervention programmes means that, for the first time, people arrested for drug-related offences now have an intervention programme that not only treats their drug-related addiction, but punishes them for the criminal activity that they have undertaken.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know better than I whether Northamptonshire is in the east midlands. If it is, I can call him to speak.

Tony Blair: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 summit, which took place between 6 and 8 June in Heiligendamm in Germany.
	1 pay tribute to Chancellor Merkel's outstanding chairmanship. The purpose of the summit was to take forward the agenda first established at the Gleneagles G8 summit of 2005, on climate change and Africa.
	On climate change, the scale of the challenge, environmentally and politically, has been becoming clearer month by month. There is now a scientific consensus that the planet is warming dangerously. If we do not halt and then reverse the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, we face a potential catastrophe. Sir Nicholas Stern's report has shown that early action will save money; late action will cost it. Therefore, for the environment, this is urgent.
	Politically, the problem has been clear but daunting. The United States was not part of the Kyoto treaty. The major emitters in the years to come will include China and India and developing nations. They want to grow their economies. They fear that action on climate change will limit their growth and hence keep their people—hundreds of millions of them—poor. Added to all that, Kyoto barely stabilises emissions—it is now obvious that we need substantially to cut them—and it expires in 2012.
	At Gleneagles, we set up the G8 plus 5 dialogue—the first time that the US and China have sat round the same table debating how to put a new deal together. There is still a long way to go, but for the first time an outline agreement can now be seen that meets the environmental test of cutting substantially the harmful emissions and the political test of bringing developed and developing nations, notably America and China, together.
	We agreed at the G8, for the first time, that a new global climate change agreement should succeed the current Kyoto treaty. We agreed, for the first time, that at the heart of that agreement should be a substantial cut in global emissions. The summit sent an important signal that the global target should be of the order of a cut of at least 50 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050—the target set by the European Union, Japan and Canada.
	We agreed at the G8, for the first time, that the process for such a new agreement should be set out. We agreed that the UN is the only body able to finalisea global deal on climate change and that a comprehensive agreement should be reached in 2009. We called on all countries to see the UN climate change meeting in December as the first step towards achieving a comprehensive climate change agreement.
	The most important change was in relation to the position of the United States of America. Again, for the first time, President Bush signalled that he wanted the US to be part of the new global agreement, and would lead the attempt to get consensus among all the main countries, including China and India, so that that consensus could shape the final global deal. That is crucial. There will be no effective climate change accord without the US, and the US will not agree without China being part of it. Now we have an agreement in principle, a goal and a process to achieve it. Much remains to be done, but on any basis that is a substantial step forward.
	We agreed that tackling climate change and addressing energy security were complementary goals. We highlighted the importance of tackling energy efficiency, dealing with emissions caused by deforestation and helping developing countries, which are likely to be worst hit by climate change, to adapt to its impacts. We agreed on a renewed effort to develop and deploy new low-carbon technologies, and we have sent a strong message that emissions-trading schemes, both within and between countries, will play a key role in giving incentives to business to invest in those technologies.
	Heiligendamm was never going to be about finalising a deal. It was about sending a clear signal on the shape of the post-2012 climate change framework, and that is exactly what it did. The United Kingdom, for its part, will work hard in the G8, in the United Nations and elsewhere to deliver the objective that is of such fundamental importance to the future of the world.
	Two years ago the Gleneagles G8 agreed to a global increase in aid and debt relief of $50 billion by 2010, with $25 billion of that extra for Africa. It also agreed to universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010, the tackling of other killer diseases, a commitment to funding primary education, support for an African peacekeeping force, and a big debt write-off. Britain is already meeting its commitment to increase aid for Africa: I am proud to say that we have trebled it. Before the summit Germany announced an extra €3 billion over four years, and America announced an extra$15 billion for treating HIV/AIDS over five years. Overall aid has risen. We should not ignore what has already been done, or the almost $40 billion of additional debt relief for Africa since 2005, but we will need to do substantially more to ensure that the Gleneagles provisions are observed.
	The G8 did, however, reiterate its commitment to delivering universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010. Since Gleneagles, around 1 million people in Africa have been receiving the antiretroviral drugs that they need. Now the G8 has agreed to fund a total of5 million. That is more than the G8 share of the commitment as predictions stand, but we can do more in years to come to meet the 2010 goal if the need arises, and we are committed to providing $60 billion over the next few years in Africa to help to achieve that. We are also committed to meeting the estimated $6 billion to $8 billion shortfall in funding for the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, and—reflecting United Kingdom policy—to providing the long-term predictable funding that is necessary to achieve the fund's overall goals.
	The G8 committed itself to taking specific steps to tackle the alarming feminisation of the AIDS epidemic. In sub-Sarahan Africa some 60 per cent. of adults living with HIV/AIDS are women, and three out of four young people living with HIV are women and girls. The G8 committed itself to scaling up its efforts to deliver universal access of services to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to their children, to paediatric services and to maternal and child health services, at a total cost of nearly $5 billion.
	The G8 also committed itself to working to fill the immediate $500 million financing gap for the education fast-track initiative. Again in line with broader United Kingdom policy, the G8 committed itself to helping to provide long-term predictable funding to ensure that every child gets to school, and reiterated its commitment to ensuring that no country that was seriously committed to education for all would be thwarted in the achievement of its goal by a lack of resources. That will help the meeting of the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015.
	In addition, the G8 committed itself to identifying, agreeing and supporting lasting solutions to the financing of peacekeeping missions in Africa. That is essential if key missions such as the African Union mission in Darfur are not to limp on hand to mouth for month after month. We agreed a strong statement on the crisis in Darfur. The truth is that President Bashir of Sudan has consistently refused to admit a hybrid United Nations-African union force, and has consistently only moved under the threat of pressure from outside. Unless he now agrees to the G8 and UN demands, we are committed to a new and tougher package of sanctions, through the Security Council, to force him to do so.
	Our last session was dominated by discussion of the world trade talks. The gap has now narrowed. There is the real possibility of agreeing an outline deal by the end of June. The outstanding elements amount to only a few percentage points either way. We are therefore closer to the headline numbers than ever before, but we have to move from wanting to do the deal to doing it. The meeting that will take place at G4 between 19 and 23 June will be absolutely crucial. Britain will continue to do all we can—and we have done much over the past months—to bridge the remaining gap.
	The benefits of a world trade agreement for the wealthy nations as well as the developing nations are enormous. It would be good for business and jobs, good for the multilateral system, and good for the world's poorest. I urge the United States, the European Union and the G20 developing countries to get that deal done. It will be great to succeed. It will be a profound shame to fail.
	As usual at G8 summits, I also had bilateral meetings with a number of leaders, in particular a long and frank meeting with President Putin, covering the range of issues currently under discussion—the Litvinenko case, Kosovo, ballistic missile defence and energy policy. I set out our view that people were becoming worried and fearful about the implications of present Russian policy. The President set out with equal frankness his views. It was right to have such an exchange. The issues were aired with complete openness on both sides. I said to him that we wanted a good relationship with Russia. He affirmed his desire to see Russia-UK relations strong, but the truth is that the issues between our two countries remain unresolved.
	Therefore, this summit made a real breakthrough on climate change, more progress on Africa and showed again the value to Britain of its transatlantic and European alliances. I commend the outcome to the House.

David Cameron: I would like to start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement. I wish to raise four main areas. The first is climate change. The agreement reached at the G8 is welcome and we should congratulate the Prime Minister on his part in achieving it. Clearly, the US Administration are now taking a different approach to climate change, but can he tell us the extent to which he believes that the change in language will be backed by changes in action? After the Prime Minister's first summit in 1997, he told the House that the United States could be on the verge of agreeing to legally binding targets. We still need that to happen.
	Will the Prime Minister clear up the potential confusion about baselines for the targets? Does he agree that the cuts must be measured from a 1990 baseline? As he said, the involvement of India and China is vital. He said that the goal must now be a full successor to the Kyoto treaty, with binding targets, involving the US, India and China. What prospect does he see for real progress to be made at December's UN climate change conference in Indonesia?
	The destruction of the world's forests is responsible for one fifth of carbon emissions, which is even more than those generated by transport. Does the Prime Minister agree that the language in the communiqué about deforestation is very disappointing? When it comes to climate change, clearly, international action is essential, but domestic leadership remains vital. Does he share my concern that carbon emissions in the United Kingdom have risen in the past decade?
	The second major issue is tackling poverty in Africa. On debt relief, progress has been made since Gleneagles and we welcome that, but on aid there is some confusion and I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could try to clear up some of the figures. There is concern that the announced additional aid is not all new money. Will he confirm that the $60 billion headline figure amounts to $12 billion to be spent annually on AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and reinforcing health systems, and that up to $9 billion of that has been pledged annually already, or is part of existing packages? Therefore, according to those Oxfam estimates, the total annual increase in spending amounts to just $3 billion a year. What can he say to those who, after the enthusiasm of Live Aid, now feel quite disappointed?
	A further concern is that countries do not stick to their promises. On HIV/AIDS in particular, at Gleneagles, the G8 pledged to make access to prevention and antiretroviral treatment available to all by 2010. We argued here for interim targets to make that possible. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said, but is it not the case that the G8 has effectively watered down its own commitment, that it is now promising to provide treatment for 5 million people, but that that falls well short of what is required?
	A key part of ensuring that countries keep their promises is to examine the quality of aid, as well as the quantity. Is it not now time for an independent international body to measure and compare the impact and effectiveness of aid, and to drive up standards so that the G8 member states achieve value for money in the aid they spend?
	The Prime Minister and I agree that the best way to encourage development in the longer term is to promote free and fair trade. That is what the Doha round was meant to be about. President Bush's special authority to agree a deal on trade ends on 30 June, so we are close to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour. What steps will the Prime Minister take in the coming three critical weeks, and especially in the run-up to the Potsdam trade meeting in a week's time, to help get Doha back on track?
	The third issue is Darfur, the world's most pressing humanitarian crisis. As the Prime Minister said, the G8 statement on Darfur covers important issues, such as an international force and the need for aid to get through to the refugee camps. The words are good, but will things actually change on the ground? Is it not abundantly clear to anyone who has visited that region that the real problem is the Khartoum Government, and their utter unwillingness to co-operate with the international community in putting an end to the killing? Does the Prime Minister agree that only strong and united action will overcome that resistance by the Sudanese Government?
	The fourth issue is security. We welcome the measures on nuclear security and counter-terrorism, and the strong language about Iran. On Russia, when someone is murdered on British soil, the police and other relevant authorities should be able to pursue the perpetrators without fear or favour wherever their investigations lead. Will the Prime Minister tell us a little more about the progress that he made in his talks on that issue with President Putin?
	The Prime Minister has indicated that after he leaves office he plans to remain engaged in the issues discussed at the G8, and especially climate change and development. We wait to see in what capacity; I even read in the papers that he might swap the Dispatch Box for a pulpit and the House of Commons for a church. Whatever he does, the Prime Minister can take credit for pushing the issues of climate change and poverty up the agenda of the group of most powerful nations in the world. The Opposition will always ask the appropriate questions about the delivery of the promises that have been made, but raising the profile of those issues is a genuine achievement for which many have cause to be grateful.

Tony Blair: No, you lose any sense of embarrassment after a time in this job. First, let me thank the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for his generous words at the end of his speech—if not for his career suggestions.
	There are important issues in relation to climate change. In 1997, the United States appeared to be ready to sign up to the Kyoto treaty, but before we put all the blame for that not happening on the change of Administration, it is worth pointing out that the US Senate voted by—I think—98 votes to none against the treaty, so there has long been an issue to do with how far the US is prepared to go in signing up to a global deal. It is particularly important to remember that there is no point in having a new agreement on climate change unless the US is involved, and unless China and India share the common goal—albeit perhaps with differentiated obligations.
	That is why I do not consider the fact that the US will lead some of the meetings at G8 plus 5 or G8 plus 7 to be adverse. On the contrary, that is a good thing because the more the Americans are prepared to take a clear lead on this issue, the better. They will, of course, be anxious to ensure that China and India are part of the deal and that everyone has obligations, and the reality is that the Europeans would also arrive at that position.
	The fact that we have the prospect of a new deal with a substantial cut in emissions at its heart is a huge step forward. Of course, the December meeting will be vital but, as I have said time and again, there is no point in getting a hundred countries around the table making an agreement if their emissions amount to only 20 per cent. of the total. The G8 plus 5 represents more than 70 per cent. of the emissions. China will overtake the US as the major emitter within the next few years, and India's emissions are already rising substantially. Those countries will be worried and concerned to make sure that we do not impose on them obligations that limit their growth, but that is why the other part of this—I did not deal with this in detail in my statement—is technology transfer. As we develop the new technologies, we will have to share them with the developing world.
	What the right hon. Gentleman says on deforestation is right, but there will be the possibility of making more concrete the actions proposed at the December meeting in Indonesia. On CO2 emissions, yes, it is true that we, like other countries, have got to do far more, but that is the purpose of the Climate Change Bill and other matters.
	On Africa, there is a confusion here that it is important to pin down. At Gleneagles, there was a commitment to an extra $50 billion a year, $25 billion of which should go to Africa, and that was for aid and debt relief. What is then important is not that there is new money on top of the $25 billion, but that we say how the $25 billion is going to be met. Therefore, although it is true when people say, "Well, only several billion dollars of the HIV/AIDS money is new", the important thing is that it is a major fulfilment of what was set out in general at the Gleneagles summit. So on HIV/AIDS, the more specific that we are on education and on treating other killer diseases, the more that this $25 billion stops being a general figure and becomes one that people can add up and thereby see what has happened.
	The situation becomes very complicated for another two reasons. First, it is unclear the degree to which debt relief counts as aid; that is a separate argument in itself. Secondly, on HIV/AIDS treatment, World Health Organisation predictions are in the course of being revised. The G8 summit at Heiligendamm committed to providing help for 5 million people, which is a very substantial uplift on anywhere that we have been before. It is true that we may have to go further between now and 2010, when the commitment is set, but I think it somewhat unreasonable to say that there has not been substantial progress. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that, but it is important for those campaigning outside to realise that for the first time, we are putting real numbers on HIV/AIDS treatment. Five million people getting antiretroviral drugs is a massive change from where we are at the moment. If we need to do more, we should be prepared to do more, and that is why this is described as an important step and not the total fulfilment of our commitments.
	On the international body, this is a debate that will go on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has outlined his approach to this issue, which is through a committee, but I agree that one way or another, it is important that we holdto account the international community for the commitments that it has given. But one important thing was agreed right at the end of summit. The Japanese, who will hold the summit next year, agreed that Africa should again be a central part of the agenda. That is an important thing, and I believe that the world will meet the commitments that it set out, but along the way there will be much debate.
	It has to be said that, over the next few years, America will effectively have multiplied by a factor of five the amount of aid that it has given to Africa since President Bush came to power—something that is not always pointed out. But we still need some of the other European countries to do more, and part of our discussion inside the European Union and elsewhere will be to make sure that countries that have been falling back on their aid commitments in recent years step up to them.
	On the world trade talks, the right hon. Gentleman is absolute right—the meeting next week will be crucial, but the gap has narrowed. The assessment given by Pascal Lamy, the head of the World Trade Organisation, was noticeably more upbeat, but there is still very hard negotiating to do before we are there. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says on Darfur and the necessity for action there. On the talks with Russia, no, I cannot say that we have made great progress on the Litvinenko case. We shall continue, obviously, to do all that we can to press the Russians on this issue.

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says is the Russian case, but we have said throughout, and I believe this to be true, that Kosovo is sui generis for the reasons that have been given many times over the past few years. The difficulty comes if we do not take this issue to its conclusion, which is the reason why we asked Mr. Ahtisaari to look at it, and if we do not then act on his conclusions, we will be in stalemate. I do not think that that would be good either for the people in Kosovo or for the region. I certainly do not dismiss and never have dismissed the Russian case scornfully, but none the less, we have moved on from where we were a few years ago. For most of us, it is difficult to see the way in which we achieve a solution, other than on the terms set out by Mr. Ahtisaari.

Menzies Campbell: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's statement, and I am sure that he speaks for the whole House in what he says about Darfur and the world trade talks.
	In spite of the Prime Minister's optimism, though, is not he disappointed as he leaves office that, although there is a commitment to talks, there is as yet no binding commitment to action on carbon emissions? Is not what is urgently needed an agreed framework for reduction, based on the principle of contraction and convergence? What is the Prime Minister's honest assessment of the chances of achieving that? In view of Oxfam's statement that Africa will feel the effects of global warming first and worst, does not it underline the need for agreed targets for reduction if the G8's agenda for Africa is to have any chance of being fully implemented? The truth is that the G8 statement on aid is in effect a promise to keep the promises that were made at Gleneagles. How can we be satisfied that that promise will be kept rather than the others?
	Finally, although there is no mention of this in the Prime Minister's statement, the G8 statement says that all participants reaffirm their commitment to combat corruption by implementing their obligations tothe Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are fulfilling those obligations?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is important, and I think that he is right: once an agreement is made, it is important that it is properly enforced. Personally, I think that reform of the UN Security Council is now long overdue. However, he is also right in saying that for poorer countries adaptation will be very difficult indeed, and that is why a specific part of the communiqué is geared precisely to making sure that as part of a global deal, we help the poorest to adapt to the change in climate.

Chris Bryant: Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea(Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the implications of his question, I wholly congratulate the Prime Minister on adopting a robust attitude with the Russian President. Does the President understand that it is not just the UK but the whole European Union that wants to do business with Russia, but finds it increasingly difficult to do so as there is systematic use of torture by the police in Russia, the right to peaceful assembly is ignored, the murder of journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya remain unresolved, and companies such as BP and Shell are concerned that if they make significant investments in Russia in future they may be expropriated by the Russian Government?

Tony Blair: Because that is neither what we are saying nor what we are doing. Allegations have been made in relation to that which are fiercely denied. That is not the issue. The issue is whether it is sensible for us to pursue an investigation that may go on for two or three years, which in my judgment would do enormous damage to a relationship that is of vital importance to this country. The hon. Gentleman should be wary of making allegations that are not undisputed—in fact, they are hotly disputed—and of saying that because the investigation is not going forward, those allegations are somehow accepted. They are not. The question is whether it is sensible and in this country's interest to hold such an investigation, with all the damage that it would do. In the end, as I have said to the media, they have their job to do, but I have my job to do, and if I think something is contrary to the interests of this country, it is my duty to say to.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a named day question tabled for answer today about the rate at which the operational allowance paid to our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to be raised to take account of inflation. Imagine my surprise this morning, then, when I saw that the Press Association was reporting that reporters travelling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Baghdad have been given that information ahead of my question being answered. What can be done, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that Government Ministers, particularly the next Prime Minister, put their responsibilities to the House before the needs of the press?

William Hague: I beg to move,
	That this House supports the principle that there should be an inquiry by an independent committee of Privy Counsellors to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath and to make recommendations on the lessons for the future.
	The subject of a major inquiry into the Iraq war was last debated in the House last October. Given the extent of public anxiety on the issue, the mounting problems being experienced on the ground and the widespread feeling across politics in principle for holding such an inquiry, I make no apology for returning to it now. The motion calls for agreement to the principle that an inquiry of the kind led by Lord Franks into the Falklands war should be established. It does not of itself specify the timing or any further details and it therefore provides the opportunity for the Government to make clearer their own thinking or to come up with their own proposals.
	A month ago, in a debate with some parallels to this one, we similarly proposed agreement in principle to the formalising of parliamentary approval for decisions to go to war. On that occasion, the Government responded constructively by accepting the principle and promising to produce detailed proposals and to consult the Opposition parties in the meantime. It was to be hoped that the Government would respond in similar fashion to this debate, which is in effect an invitation to them to set out in more detail inside the House their thinking on an inquiry that several Ministers have been happy to say they favour when outside the House.
	The last time we debated these matters, the Foreign Secretary managed to get through the debate without conceding that a major inquiry would be held, only for the Defence Secretary to say, within minutes of the end of the debate,
	"When the time is right of course there will be such an inquiry".
	If the Government believe that there will be such an inquiry, there is no reason for them not to accept the principle of it today. That is all that the motioncalls for. In addition, the Leader of the House said on 23 February:
	"I think we have all made clear there will be an inquiry in due course",
	perhaps forgetting that the Foreign Secretary had not made that clear when the matter was debated—and, indeed, had refused to do so.
	As the candidates for the Labour deputy leadership have travelled the country, they have come under a great deal of pressure from Labour party activists, leading them all to say, in various ways, either that there will be an inquiry or that there should be one. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) said:
	"I do see the case for an inquiry as part of an overall reconciliation with the British people and actually we have an opportunity over the next three months with the new leadership to turn the page on this."
	I therefore hope that, even though the Government have tabled more or less the same amendment to our motion as they did in October, the Foreign Secretary will recognise in her speech the gathering consensus in British politics and that she will decide to become part of it. Last time, she did not commit the Government to a major inquiry. If she does not do so this time, she will be at variance with many of her Cabinet colleagues.

Chris Bryant: I believe that there should be an inquiry. It seems to me inevitable that, in the fullness of time, there will be an inquiry, but oneof the key points is who should sit on it. The righthon. Gentleman suggests that it should be Privy Councillors. Although I have great respect for Privy Councillors, I have even more respect for Parliament. I believe that we should hold a parliamentary inquiry. The main reason for allowing it to be done by Privy Councillors is so that evidence can be taken at this difficult time on Privy Council terms. Surely, however, we need an inquiry that is fully in the open, which can happen only once our troops have returned.

William Hague: I am putting a date on it. I have not been able to do so yet because I have taken so many interventions. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, he will not be disappointed, as I am coming to that very issue.
	I was explaining to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) the advantages of this approach. A formal public inquiry would be likely to be a much lengthier process. A Committee of this House, which I believe was proposed by the nationalist parties, would find it harder to benefit from external expertise. A Privy Council inquiry on the model of the Franks commission therefore rapidly recommends itself for this particular subject and it must be highly likely to be what will happen in the end. The Government should be able to accept that today. If the Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary were not referring to this kind of committee of Privy Councillors when they referred to there being an inquiry in the future, the Foreign Secretary needs to tell the House today what sort of inquiry they were they talking about.
	Given, however, that the Government's response does not look as if it is going to be as constructive or even as consistent as that, the amendment that the Government have tabled to our motion today merits examination. It argues
	"that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq",
	and it declines
	"to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention"
	from
	"improving the condition of Iraq"
	at the moment.
	The weaknesses of those arguments are readily apparent. First, the argument that the existence of inquiries presents a diversion from vital tasks and that four of them have taken place already cannot both be true at the same time—unless the Government believe that the hearings of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or the processes of the Butler report seriously hampered the work going on in Iraq. Secondly, these arguments do not prevent the Government from accepting the case for a suitably powerful inquiry in principle. Thirdly, the idea that the ground has been covered even remotely adequately by what they call the
	"four separate independent committees of inquiry"
	is nothing short of ludicrous.
	One of those inquiries was the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly. Another was the Butler report, which focused only on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. One of the others was the Foreign Affairs Committee report, published four years ago, on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Afterwards, the Committee published its views on the co-operation that it had received from the Government. In March 2004, it reported:
	"We were hopeful that we would receive full cooperation from the government."
	However, it went on to state:
	"Our Chairman wrote to the Prime Minister (requesting his attendance and that of Mr. Alastair Campbell); the Cabinet Office Intelligence Co-ordinator; the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; the Chief of Defence Intelligence; the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service; and the Director of GCHQ. None of them replied."
	It continued:
	"We are confident that our inquiry would have been enhanced if our requests had been met. We agree with Alastair Campbell that 'It would have been very odd to have done this inquiry' without questioning him, and we regret that other witnesses, some of whom we suspect felt the same way as Mr. Campbell, were prevented from appearing."
	That is the true story of the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, yet it is held up by the Government in their amendment as an example of an independent inquiry. It is unacceptable for the Government to refuse to co-operate fully with the inquiries that take place, and then to cite their work as an illustration of why further inquiries are unnecessary.
	The fact is that each of the inquiries that has taken place so far has provided a snapshot of one particular aspect of events in Iraq, but that their findings were sometimes arrived at without the full co-operation of the Government and are in general now out of date. There has been no investigation so far into the overall conduct of the war, the planning for the aftermath, or the implementation of such plans as may have existed for the rebuilding of the Iraqi state and society after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
	The argument that not even a proposal for an inquiry can be made because to do so would "divert attention" from the work going on in Iraq is merely the age-old argument of Ministers on the defensive. It amounts to saying that they are too busy to learn any lessons from what happened before, and it is an utterly bogus argument. Even if it were true, they would still be able to accept the principle of an inquiry, as called for in the motion before the House, but it is not true that our troops would be demoralised or that our enemies would take heart if we took the trouble to find out what has gone wrong. In a democratic society, the examination of successes and failures is a sign of strength, not of weakness. I have some experience of listening to soldiers serving in Iraq or who have recently returned from there, and they do an heroic job. They of all people are particularly anxious that the political decisions made in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion receive searching examination.
	I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who intervened on me earlier, that in circumstances of war, indeed even of total war, our predecessors in this House have conducted the most vigorous debates about wartime debacles, whether in Norway in 1940 or in the Dardanelles in 1915. Indeed, in the latter case, they set up a major commission of inquiry while the first world war continued. They were even encouraged to do so by the Minister principally responsible, a certain Winston Churchill, who clearly had a stronger sense of the need for accountability and learning lessons than we sometimes see today.

William Hague: Let me carry on for a little while. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
	Secondly, we have to be absolutely clear about some of the errors that have been made so that they are not repeated, for instance in Afghanistan. Thirdly, everyone—supporters of the war as well as its opponents—must now recognise that the events of the last four years have damaged public trust and confidence in the political handling of such matters more than any events in our lifetime. A major inquiry and the debates that will necessarily flow from its findings are an essential precursor to rebuilding trust and confidence in the capacity of this or any Government to deal with situations in the middle east. Such rebuilding of public trust is a vital task, and should not be long delayed.
	In debates in the House of Lords, there has been a good deal of consensus, very much in line with what I propose. Former Foreign Secretaries such as my noble Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell and the noble Lord Owen have put the case for an inquiry to consider the workings of the machinery of government. Lord Owen said:
	"There is now an overriding case to establish an inquiry...very similar to the Dardanelles Commission."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1350.]
	There is no doubt in my mind that the co-ordination of Government Departments in the aftermath of the invasion is a legitimate subject for examination. Last December, at the court martial of soldiers from the Queens Lancashire Regiment, the Army officer who led British forces in Basra following the invasion, Brigadier Moore, said that in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion his 4,000 men were,
	"Not supported by any of the other government departments, other than their own."
	He said:
	"The Foreign Office was there but largely inactive. No one from the Department of Trade and Industry was there. So the Brigade had to try and regenerate the economy, establish a judiciary, as well as security and stability. We were the only show in town. There was a lack of support across the rest of Whitehall."
	We should, of course, recognise the successes in Iraq over the past few years: Saddam Hussein has been removed, democratic elections have been held, and parts of the country are relatively stable. Overall, however, Iraq today is not the Iraq that we hoped for in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam. I have mentioned the need to look into the major decisions, generally made in Washington, but undoubtedly with some kind of British input, either for or against—the de-Ba'athification and disbandment of the army. Those were of huge importance, and much needs to be learned from them about how to influence decisions when conducting operations alongside a superpower.
	Then there were the immense problems in delivering improvements to the infrastructure of Iraq. The United States has conducted a wide range of searching inquiries, and notably has not been afraid to do soin spite of its massive engagement in fighting in Iraq. The American Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has produced 60 audit reports and given testimony to Congress on at least 18 occasions, but there is no equivalent examination of the more than £350 million of British taxpayers' money disbursed by the Department for International Development since 2003. The inquiry begun by the International Development Committee in 2004 was discontinued after the last election, yet the needto learn lessons from the difficulties faced is urgentand serious.
	For all those reasons, none of us in the House should turn our face against a major inquiry into what has happened. This Government and future Governments need to learn the lessons, and the country needs to be assured that they will have done so. No adequate reason remains for the Government to refuse to establish such an inquiry to begin its work in the near future, but there is even less reason for them to disagree with the motion before the House today calling for such an inquiry in principle. Their response could be a constructive one, as on war powers, accepting that principle and opening the way for cross-party discussion to bring it about. Instead, if the Government's amendment is anything to go by, the Foreign Secretary looks set to maintain the Government's refusal to make any proposal for an inquiry. That position is inconsistent with the many comments already made by Ministers, incompatible with learning vital lessons as fully and as rapidly as possible, and inadequate to the scale of the immensely difficult issues that we now face.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Foreign Secretary says that she is unhappy with the idea of an inquiry while British troops remain in Iraq. She will be aware that it is widely assumed that even if the vast majority of British troops are withdrawn over the next 12 months, it is highly likely that a significant number will remain to carry out training functions or for other purposes, possibly for several years. Is she implying that no inquiry could be considered by the Government until the last British soldier has left Iraq?

Margaret Beckett: I am not implying anything. I am simply saying very clearly and straightforwardly, as I did when this matter was last raised, that I do not think that now, when our troops are very much engaged, is the time to make the decision that has been proposed to the House.
	Since we debated the issue here in October, the Government's position on an inquiry has been restated a number of times by, for instance, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Leader of the House, and indeed by the Prime Minister. Nothing has happened since last October to change our position. More than 5,000 British troops do remain in Iraq, where they continue to be engaged in extremely difficult and dangerous work in trying to build a better future for the Iraqi people. Only last week, Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari paid tribute to them and stressed the importance of what they were doing for his country. I too pay tribute to their courage and professionalism.
	I know that the House will join me in offering condolences to the family of Corporal Rodney Wilson, who was killed in Basra last week. He was the 150th soldier to lose his life in Iraq since 2003. I also pay tribute to two other servicemen, Lance-Corporal Paul Sandford and Guardsman Neil Downes, both of whom lost their lives in Helmand province in Afghanistan last week. I know that I take the whole House with me in sending our condolences to their families.
	Against that background, it should be no surprise to anyone that the Government's position has not changed. We continue to believe that agreeing to set such an inquiry in motion at this moment would be not only premature but, much worse, self-indulgent. By contrast, the Opposition's approach to the issue seems at best confused and at worst opportunistic. Sadly, that is not new. In October, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said:
	"To begin an inquiry now"
	—that is, on that date in October—
	"would...be premature".
	He then promptly voted for a motion that implied that such an inquiry should be launched immediately. To be fair, he said that an inquiry should instead commence in
	"the next Session of Parliament".—[ Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol.451, c.183-4.]
	He did not point out that, at the time, that was two weeks away. The motion that the right hon. Gentleman has tabled today makes no reference at all to the timing of such an inquiry, but does attempt—although he made only a passing reference to this—to commit the House to a very specific proposal for its forum.
	The right hon. Gentleman therefore appears to have accepted the argument that we advanced last October that now is perhaps not the time for his proposal to take effect. For our part, we also remain of the view that this is not the time to send a signal of potential disunity—whether it be to the courageous Government and people of Iraq, or to our own immensely courageous armed forces—or indeed to commit ourselves to an inquiry in the form that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. I accept, of course, that that was the form of the Falklands inquiry—but in the25 years since the Falklands war, important things have changed in the way in which Parliament works.

John Redwood: Why is it not possible to acceptthe proposal in principle, while leaving it to the Government to choose the date for dealing with all the issues that the Foreign Secretary has raised? To refuse that makes the Government look as if they have something to hide, and I am sure that they would not want that coming across as their true view.

John Baron: We hope that the inquiry will be wide-ranging, and that it will include an examination of how the intelligence was assessed and presented. In the meantime, however, I have a question. The main justification for war was the weapons of mass destruction argument, and that ultimately proved to be wrong. Who does the Foreign Secretary think is to blame for that? Does the blame lie with the intelligence services for their assessment of the intelligence that came in, or with the politicians for their presentation of the evidence?

Michael Moore: The Foreign Secretary's statement that nothing has changed in the Government's position since October will not have been a surprise; none the less, it will be a disappointment to the House. It appears to all intents and purposes that the Government are still trying to avoid an inquiry, while hinting that there will be one. They are simply ducking the question of when.
	The Foreign Secretary said that many Ministers and others have made themselves available to the House in debates, during statements and at questions. Those are worthwhile and welcome occasions, but they are surely no substitute for a thoroughgoing inquiry into what led up to the war in Iraq and what has happened since. The motion today simply asks for the principle to be accepted—little more than that. I should have thought that it was not beyond the Government to accept that. The motion has echoes of the nationalist text that we debated at the end of October, and there is nothing wrong with that, since the need for a proper inquiry into the follies and misjudgments that took us into the war in Iraq is even more pressing now than it was then. In the spirit of cross-party unity, which was evident on both sides of the House on that day, the Liberal Democrats will support the motion when it comes to a Division later.
	Before I go on to our reasons why, however, let me add the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the tributes already properly and generously paid by the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), to our armed forces. Throughout the conflict, as in so many others, the men and women of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force have shown the highest levels of professionalism, dedication and commitment that could ever be expected of them. Their bravery and courage is beyond question, and indeed, many have paid the highest price. Many more have suffered or continue to suffer the consequences of their time in Iraq. We should never lose sight of those sacrifices.
	Since we last debated the call for an inquiry in October 2006, we have seen the deadliest month for UK forces since the initial invasion, with 12 servicemen killed in April. In total, 30 more UK personnel have been killed since October 2006, and as the Foreign Secretary sadly marked, 150 servicemen and women have lost their lives in Iraq serving their country. Our thoughts are ever with them and the families and friends who are so tragically affected.
	In the wider context, we should not forget the toll on American and other coalition service personnel, with US casualties nearing 3,500 and other coalition casualties nearing 130. That is all indicative of a desperate security situation. In written answers to me, the Secretary of State for Defence has detailed how attacks on UK-led, multinational forces have risen sharply since our last debate. From that date until the end of April, there were more than 1,300 attacks, compared with just over 500 in the previous six months. That is in the context of Operation Sinbad and the greater levels of confrontation that were inevitably involved, but at the very least, it highlights the ferocity of the situation even in southern Iraq. As we have been reminded only too recently, the dangers there extend to kidnapping, with the fate of the five latest hostages captured at the end of May still unknown. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families, too.
	We may never know how many Iraqis have been kidnapped, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we will never know the true figure for civilian casualties in Iraq. There have been many estimates, and the United Nations has reported that 34,000 were killed last year alone. For millions of people, life and normality have been destroyed.
	The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that there are approximately 2 million internally displaced people in Iraq. There are another2 million Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries, particularly in Syria and Jordan. Many people lack support, and the host countries are struggling to deal with them. According to a written answer that I received from the Secretary of State for International Development,
	"DFID has provided £10 million to support emergency relief and other services to displaced and vulnerable Iraqis"—[ Official Report, 7 June 2007; Vol. 465, c. 685W.]
	this year. However, if I understand the answer correctly, that is in Iraq and throughout the region. In the context of the estimated £5 billion cost of the Iraq war to the United Kingdom, it is a tiny amount.
	Our obligations surely extend to the many former translators and interpreters who have had to flee Iraq, and according to Human Rights Watch, have been denied any assistance in reaching the UK or in obtaining asylum in this country. Those people put their lives on the line alongside British personnel, and their lives are still on the line. Of all the people affected, surely we have a particular responsibility to them.
	In Iraq, reconstruction has failed to live up to the large amounts of money poured in. To give just two examples, unemployment is commonly as high as40 per cent. and electricity supplies in most of the country have barely improved on pre-war levels and have actually fallen below those levels in Baghdad.
	Of course, there are achievements: democratic elections held in December 2005 and the formation of the national unity Government last year. As we have been reminded, security has been handed over in three of the four Iraqi provinces under British control, but those milestones have been overshadowed by the security situation and the failure of the reconstruction efforts so far. Even those of us who opposed the conflict when the House voted in March 2003—that opposition was unanimous on the Liberal Democrat Benches—did not foresee the scale of the disaster that continues to unfold in Iraq. The aftermath of the conflict is dire and we need to get to grips with why things have come to this and why we got into the mess in the first place.
	The first requirement of an inquiry will be to learn the lessons and, where appropriate, apply them to the ongoing conflict. Surely, we will also learn lessons to apply to other current and future conflicts, but at the heart of the process, as the shadow Foreign Secretary set out, must be the need to ensure proper parliamentary oversight of the Executive, which has until now been utterly inadequate, despite the efforts of Members from all parties to do their bit. The oft-quoted Chief of the General Staff, GeneralSir Richard Dannatt, was right when he said that
	"history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than...planning".
	More is required of an inquiry than investigation of what happened to planning for the aftermath; we still need to understand the fundamentals, such as the purpose of the intervention. Was it simply to seek compliance with UN resolutions or, as many leaks, commentators and suspicions suggest, to enable regime change? When was the actual decision taken and when was British commitment given to the United States President? What exactly was the UK input to coalition strategy beforehand and what has it been since? What of the intelligence? Issues remain about both its gathering and processing, which allowed the creation of the flawed prospectus. We are no nearer a full understanding of the political oversight of intelligence processing. In that respect, the early draft of the September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, prepared by Mr. John Williams of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is important evidence, which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and others have been trying to obtain. It should be released so that we can make a proper assessment of what decisions were taken and when. More significantly, we still need to understand the role of the Attorney-General and why he changed his advice over a few fateful days in 2003, knowing as we do now that he was more ambiguous in his initial advice to the Prime Minister on 13 March compared to that presented to Parliament on 17 March. Those are just some of the issues that will need to be considered by an inquiry, but it is important that we are clear about its type and powers.
	As a party, we have previously set out the case for a full public inquiry, which would have the widest possible scope, to investigate all relevant aspects of the decision to go to war in Iraq, but we are happy to support the mechanism proposed by the shadow Foreign Secretary on the basis that the membership reflects the range of expertise required and that the powers will be clear.

Tobias Ellwood: I am intrigued as to the Liberal Democrat position. Had Britain not supported the war it is likely that we would have been invited to help with the peacekeeping efforts under resolution 1483. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Chamber whether the Liberal Democrats would have supported Britain's participation in peacekeeping had we not been participating in the initial war-fighting?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, all the more so because he served in Iraq. The House ought to pay tribute to him and other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from the Conservative Benches, who did their duty at that time. I know that people from all over the House did so.
	Beyond the expectations of our armed forces, we see senior figures of our armed forces—there are none more senior than General Dannatt—being frank and open about some of the failings and about what needs to be done. I suspect that people like him know more about morale than most of us in the Chamber. The debate is going on in every part of British life, not least in the media and as part of independent inquiries, such as that recently launched by the Foreign Policy Centre and Channel 4. That inquiry is chaired by an impeccable cross-party group with significant expertise that includes Baroness Jay, Lord King and Lord Ashdown. Parliament should not be left behind in the debate. In fact, certain Labour Members are already arguing for an inquiry as the contest for the deputy leadership of the Labour party hots up. It seems that it is open season for everyone, except those of us who were elected to scrutinise the Executive.
	Earlier this year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) set out our view that British forces should now leave Iraq. Nothing has happened in the meantime to change our view. We believe that the issue should be one of the first priorities for our new Prime Minister, not least following his visit to Baghdad. While I hope that we will return to the specifics of future policy on Iraq on a later date, we believe that it is time for us to prepare to leave and to learn the lessons.
	In the debate on the need for an inquiry in October, the Foreign Secretary said:
	"I have no doubt that there will come a time when we will want to look at the lessons learned from our full experience in Iraq, just as we have from every other major conflict in the past".—[ Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 181.]
	Nearly eight months on, the need for that inquiry is more pressing than ever.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a good thing that Parliament is debating the war in Iraq. The war has gone on longer than the second world war went on in Europe and has aroused the greatest passions ever among the public in Britain and the United States. It is worth reminding the House that nearly 2 million people took to the streets of London in February 2003 to demonstrate their views on British participation in that war. They took to the streets not in support of Saddam Hussein, but to oppose something that they believed to be an illegal war and because they wanted Parliament to listen to what they had to say.
	Frankly, it is absurd to argue that we should not hold an inquiry into the causes of a war that has cost the lives of many people and caused huge controversy throughout the world. It is the job of Parliament and our duty as parliamentarians to investigate what is going on, to challenge what the Executive are doing and to try to represent public opinion as best we can.
	In opposing the motion, the Foreign Secretary pointed out that inquiries had been carried out by the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee and that we had also had the Hutton and Butler inquiries.All those inquiries suffered from degrees of inadequacy. As the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out, in one case, a considerable number of fairly key witnesses refused to give any evidence whatsoever to the inquiries, which meant that the inquiries' possible achievements were severely limited. Entirely legitimate questions remain that must be asked by an inquiry: how did we get involved in the war; how bad has the situation in Iraq become; and where does this take us in the future?
	The Conservative motion is inadequate because I do not think that a Privy Council inquiry is necessarily the ideal format. Such an inquiry would exclude people who were not members of the Privy Council, even though the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks suggested that several people could become Privy Councillors instantly so that they could take part in the inquiry —[ Interruption. ] It would be extremely unlikely that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I would be invited to become members of the Privy Council underthat procedure. However, while there are clearly inadequacies in the motion, it is fair enough.
	A further inadequacy of the motion is the fact that it does not set a date by which the inquiry should take place, nevertheless, I will support the motion. I urge other colleagues to support it because that would mean that Parliament would stress that it is our duty to investigate what is going on and to present a credible report to the British public on how we got involved in the war and, above all, how we will get out of it.
	A large number of issues need to be examined. I think that I have been in the House on every single occasion when there has been a debate on Iraq since at least 1990. We have heard just about every allegation that could ever be made about the situation in Iraq. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there was a 45-minute danger period, but that turned out not to be the case. Hans Blix and Mohamed el-Baradei were prevented from returning to Iraq in January 2003, although they were undertaking an effective weapons inspection there. I would like to hear from both of them what exactly the terms were under which they were prevented from returning. There are many other questions, too.
	Crucially, we need to know what the genesis was of foreign policy after 2001. In September 2001, the Prime Minister said that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States, whatever it chose to do, and whatever problems it faced—a very brave thing to say. It was not clear then exactly what he had in mind, and where that would lead us. It led rapidly to a war in Afghanistan, and later a very strange meeting took place in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. When the Prime Minister ceases to hold that office, he should be invited to give evidence on that meeting. Was an undertaking given to President Bush that Britain would be involved in a war against Iraq, even though there was no evidence whatever that Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda or with the war in Afghanistan?
	I say that not because I am in any sense an apologist for the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks seemed to reject the notion that the inquiry should go into relations with Iraq before 1990, and I disagree with him on that point. It is important that it does consider relations with Iraq before then, because I seem to recall this House quite happily approving the sale of arms to Iraq in the late 1980s. I also recall that there was participation in the Baghdad arms fair, even after the tragedy of Halabja. There must be serious inquiries about all those things—not for some academic purpose, but so that we can try to make sense of what has happened.
	I know that there are people in the House who do not accept the estimate that  The Lancet made in its examination of the death toll in Iraq, but there has been no creditable rebuttal of it. Its estimate is that 650,000 civilians have died in Iraq. I am not accusing British, American or any other coalition forces of causing all those deaths, but I am saying that the foreign policy decisions, taken principally by Britain and the United States, to pursue a war that had no legal basis led to the chaos that led to that loss of life. More than 3,000 United States servicemen and women have died, and last week, tragically, someone became the 150th British soldier to lose his life.
	In my constituency, there are people who fled to this country to escape from Saddam Hussein, and now there are people there who fled to this country to escape the chaos of what life is like now in Iraq, and the dangers there. Last week, I was talking to a number of people from Iraq who came to this country and who, tragically, are threatened with deportation back to Iraq, They tell me that for months on end they could not go out of their house without facing the threat of being killed in the streets. The electricity and water did not work, they did not enjoy normal safety levels, and normal society and normal life did not work. All that has happened since the invasion all those years ago and, as I said earlier, we are talking about a period of greater length than Europe's second world war.
	The question of what happens in future in Iraq must also be considered. There was a report yesterday in  The Observer entitled "Iraqi government threatens arrest for leaders of striking oil workers". It said:
	"Workers are objecting to Iraq's proposed hydrocarbon law, which unions claim will amount to privatisation of the industry, allowing Western oil executives to sit on an oil ministry council which will approve contracts under which foreign companies can operate."
	That, in conjunction with the threat of arrest against Hassan Juma'a and other leaders of the Iraqi oil workers, may be one of the kernels that points to the real causes of the war in Iraq: the removal of large amounts of Iraqi natural resources into the hands of western companies. The oil law proposed in Iraq bears a horrible resemblance to the oil law introduced in Iran in 1952 after the coup that installed the Shah in power, and British oil companies did very well out of that.
	Finally, on the question of foreign policy and what goes with it, the Prime Minister, ever since he took us into the war in Iraq, has developed his ideas on foreign policy a great deal. He has given many lectures around the world about what he calls "humanitarian intervention". We should learn the following lessons: we should consider, first, whether or not the war was legal; secondly, whether it did, or did not, breach the UN charter; and thirdly, to avoid future conflicts, perhaps we should give more support to the UN charter and the principles of international law. I am concerned that in the debate about Iraq we often forget that that war started after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Many far-thinking people in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere believe that we should withdraw from Iraq to put even greater resources into Afghanistan. The road to peace in the world does not lie in one war after another, after another, after another, with all the attendant attacks on our own, and other people's, civil liberties that emanate from that. Surely, we have a big lesson to learn about how to bring about peace in the world.
	When we come to vote on the motion, we can do so, whether or not we believe in the war in Iraq. I urge Members of Parliament to think a little bit further. We were elected to the House because we live in a democracy: we were sent here to hold the Executive to account, whether they belong to the same party as us or not. It is the job of Parliament to find out the truth, and to try to inform the public better as to how the war came about. It is therefore entirely appropriate that Parliament should vote for an inquiry, which should be conducted in depth. It should be detailed, public and, above all, far reaching so that we can learn the lessons of all those tens of thousands of people who have lost their lives in Iraq and so that at least that kind of disaster and tragedy could not be repeated somewhere else in some other oil-rich part of the globe.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I begin by referring to an interest, declared in the Register, in a company that operates in Iraq?
	I support very strongly the proposal for an inquiry made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), because the Prime Minister has shown that essentially he is still in denial about the policy over which he has presided for the past few years. On several occasions, I have heard him, when challenged with the drama, trauma and mess that have developed in Iraq, say, "I accept full responsibility." Usually, when someone says that, they follow it with a second phrase—"And I acknowledge that we made a mess of this," or, "It's all gone terribly wrong." The Prime Minister is an unusual phenomenon, because he says, "I accept full responsibility and I got it right. I continue to defend what I did." Not only is that a rather eccentric approach but it damages the Government's overall credibility regarding future policy in Iraq, and not simply the justification for the past.
	We saw a remarkable example of the Prime Minister's tendency towards double- speak in an article for which he was interviewed in  The Economist on31 May. It was headed, "What I've learned", but when one read it, one discovered that he had not learned very much. He said:
	"It is said that by removing Saddam or the Taliban—regimes that were authoritarian but also kept a form of order—the plight of Iraqis and Afghans has worsened, and terrorism has been allowed to grow."
	He went on to say:
	"This is a seductive but dangerous argument. Work out what it really means. It means that because these reactionary and evil forces will fight hard, through terrorism, to prevent those countries and their people getting on their feet after the dictatorships are removed, we should leave the people under the dictatorship."
	Considered just in those narrow terms, what the Prime Minister said was entirely logical, but the premise from which he proceeded was utterly wrong. I am reminded of the remark that Harold Macmillan once made about Sir John Simon, when he said that the hon. Gentleman has such a logical frame of mind that starting from a false premise, he moves inexorably to the wrong conclusion. That is what the Prime Minister has done. He is no fool. He knows perfectly well that when any Government, including a British Government, are considering intervention through military means against a country that has not attacked them, no Government, including the present British Government, simply look at the human rights record of the Government concerned.
	Of course, that is an important consideration. So, too, is the question whether we will win in a conventional conflict and the war will be over quickly. But one also looks at all the wider implications of invading a country and implementing a policy of regime change. I ignore for the moment the fact that regime change was never part of the justification for the war and, indeed, could not have been because it would have been against international law. Even if it had been, the British Government, as we well know, have been disinclined to intervene in other countries which have just as bad a human rights record. Otherwise we would have had British troops in Zimbabwe getting rid of Mr. Mugabe. No doubt the United States would have gone into Castro's Cuba many years ago, and might have gone into North Korea more recently.
	In each and every case, the reason was not a judgment about the human rights record or a judgment as to whether a conventional war would be won. It was a wider and a very wise judgment as to the overall implications and consequences of such an invasion of a country that had not attacked us. Sometimes the arguments are valid. I pay credit to what the Government did in Sierra Leone. There was a case where there was a strong human rights argument, but where the consequences of our intervention clearly have been beneficial.
	That could have been anticipated, and was anticipated, and the Government were right to act. I happen to think that they were right in Afghanistan, but the whole point about Iraq is that most of what has happened since the invasion was not only predictable, but was predicted. It is not the Prime Minister's integrity or honesty that I question; it is the basic competence—incompetence, I should say—and the poor judgment that guided his actions over that period. That is why an inquiry is essential now.
	So much for the past. Where do we go from here with regard to the British presence in Iraq? Even those of us who were against the war cannot say that because we were against it, British troops must come out at the first available opportunity. Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia made a very wise remark. He said that the coalition must realise that if they go in uninvited, they cannot just leave uninvited. We have contributed to the mess in Iraq. It has a more democratic Government than it has ever had. That Government want us to retain a presence in Iraq, and they are entitled to have that view taken into account.
	What arguments should be used? There are three questions that we have to address. First, are we delivering the policy in Basra, in the south, that was the reason for British troops being there in the first place? Secondly, if we are not delivering that policy or only partially doing so, is there nevertheless some justification for a continuing presence on its merits in Iraq over a period of time? Thirdly, regardless of those arguments, what are the wider political implications in regard to both the United States and western interests generally if we continue in Iraq for some time?
	Let me look at those three questions briefly. First, Basra is a lot better than Baghdad. The number of people being killed is far lower. The terrorism incidents have been much easier to control, but they are not in control. There is not a sectarian conflict between Shi'a and Sunni, but we should not get too overjoyed about that. The main reason is that the Sunni have effectively been expelled from the region and have become a small minority in that locality, so the conflict there is now Shi'a-Shi'a.
	However, the Government's writ does not run in Basra, and in that sense the British Government's presence there through their military forces has not delivered the kind of peace and stability that we hoped would be the case over the past three or four years. I broadly accept the Government's argument that it is sensible over the next few months to withdraw those of our troops who are involved in patrolling in Basra. Three of the four provinces have already been handed over. It makes sense to work towards a handing over of the fourth province in months, not years. That would allow a substantial deployment.
	That brings me to my second question, which is highly relevant to what the Foreign Secretary said earlier: should we continue with some military presence even after most of our troops have been withdrawn and Basra province has been handed over to the Iraqi Government? In my judgment, the answer is yes because there are activities where we can continue to make a useful contribution to the objectives of the Iraqi Government, which we share, with regard to some possibility of stability in that region.
	What are those objectives? First, we have been heavily involved in training the 10th division of the Iraqi army, and that job is not yet complete, so a training function should continue even if we withdraw our troops from Basra province in relation to regular patrols. Secondly, when our troops move from Basra palace to Basra airport, the protection of that airport in terms of ensuring that it is able to be used with free passage is an important contribution that British troops could continue to make in an effective and credible fashion. Thirdly, a major requirement will be to ensure the free movement of logistics from Kuwait to Baghdad and to the central part of Iraq. Such convoy work is crucial. Indeed, we will do a huge disservice not only to the Iraqis but to our American allies if they have to redeploy some of their own scarce resources to cover that purely transport-related requirement from the southern part of the country to the north. That function can be carried out pretty effectively and with minimal casualties. Fourthly, there will be occasional operations where we could assist the Iraqi army where it does not have particular capabilities available to itself.
	On the basis of that argument, we would perhaps reduce our troop numbers from 5,500 to 1,000 or 1,500, ensuring that those who remained would not be as visible to the Iraqi public—and therefore could not be used as targets as has been the case in the recent past—but would continue to be able to make a useful contribution to the ongoing battle to try to get some stability and security in the country.
	My third question concerns the wider political implications. We cannot get away from the fact that if the United Kingdom simply pulled out every single last soldier in the next few months, that would gravely damage the United States. I make that remark not out of love of the United States, although I happen to approve of it as a country, but because we have no national or international interest in giving comfort to al-Qaeda and terrorist elements. Leaving the United States completely exposed in Iraq, with even its closest ally having completely abandoned it, not even carrying out those responsibilities that it can credibly and effectively carry out, would be an over-reaction to the problem and should therefore not be supported. I would not make that argument were there not a job that could be credibly done, but in training and the other areas that I mentioned it is justified on its merits as well as in terms of the political strategy that points in the same direction.
	We often hear comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. In some ways, it is a false comparison: in fact, Iraq is worse than Vietnam. In Vietnam, there was already a war going on and the United States intervened to try to help one side—the Vietnamese Government. In this case, the coalition started the invasion and the war that would not otherwise have occurred. There are other highly relevant differences. In Vietnam, there was one group of insurgents—the Vietcong—and an alternative Government: the North Vietnamese Government who were ready and willing to take over control. Neither of those factors applies in the case of Iraq. Iraq does not have one insurgency—it has multiple insurgences throughout the country. Some involve Shi'a versus Shi'a', some involve Kurds, some involve Sunni operatives, and some involve foreign jihadists such as al-Qaeda: all are battling with their own agenda and their own grasping for power. Moreover, no alternative Government are available to take over. As a result, we have a situation whereby 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq since the end of the original war, and they are overwhelmingly Iraq's middle class—the people who are essential if there is to be any economic reconstruction of the country. That makes the situation even more dire than it would otherwise have been.
	What has happened is essentially this. Yes, it is true to say that under Saddam Hussein Iraq was a rogue state, but in the past four years—I take no pleasure in saying this—it has moved from being a rogue state and is now a failed state. A failed state can have even more serious implications for its neighbours and for the region as a whole because of the vacuum that is created—we all know what happens in vacuums when very nasty and vicious people are able to operate in ways that they would not otherwise have been able to. There are powerful reasons for ensuring that the United States is not humiliated. If Britain can continue to make some contribution to the wider international effort to achieve stability despite withdrawing its patrol forces and the bulk of its troops, that must be the right course of action.
	We are not going to see an end in Iraq rather like the end in Vietnam. There will not be any US helicopter taking off from the American embassy in Baghdad on the last day of this conflict. Even if the Americans withdraw their combat forces, they are probably in for a long period of years with a very substantial presence. It will be a long haul for the Americans and probably for the United Kingdom and a number of other countries. The good news is that it will not end like Vietnam—but that is probably the bad news as well.

Angus MacNeil: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Prime Minister was right to participate in the Baker-Hamilton inquiry, surely he would welcomethe Prime Minister's participation in any inquiry into the genesis of the war that the House or the Privy Council conducted.

Khalid Mahmood: No. I am saying that I made a request to the Prime Minister and that it is currently being considered positively. We are waiting for a concrete date. People such as Major General Tim Cross have attended the inquiry and Sir Jeremy Greenstock will attend it. People such as Baroness Williams from the upper House serve on it. We are seriously considering how to tackle the situation in Iraq in future. My objection to the motion is that it does not do that.
	What are the terms of the reference of the inquiry that the Opposition propose? Would it tackle what people want it to address? We all have matters that we would like an inquiry to consider. The Opposition have tabled a motion that states that they want a Privy Council inquiry. Who will sit down and determine the terms of reference? Will the whole of Parliament agree them? How will that be managed? The Opposition need to consider that serious issue if they want a positive inquiry.

Clare Short: I strongly believe that it is essential to establish an independent inquiry into the route to war in Iraq and its aftermath for a number of profoundly important reasons. The first is that the terrible suffering, loss of life and displacement of people in Iraq continues, as does the death and injury of our soldiers and American soldiers—with no end in sight. There is no serious exit strategy. The Foreign Secretary talks as if all is going well and that if we can just wait a little bit longer, it will all be over and we could have an inquiry then. If only that were so. Whatever view one takes about the route to war, we would all be delighted if stability were to come soon and the killing and dying would end. No serious observer, however, holds that view.
	I recently met a former general in the UK Army—he was a serving general when I was in government and I know him from that period—who asked me whether I would like to know the Army view of what was happening in Iraq. He told me that the Army view was that there was absolutely no military purpose to our soldiers being in Iraq and that there was nothing that they could accomplish by being there. All they are doing, he told me, is trying not to get killed. The reason why they cannot be withdrawn is that it would be embarrassing to the US if the UK withdrew. That was a serious source of information and he was not saying that that was his personal view, but the Army view. That is outrageous. It means that our young people are killing and dying in order not to embarrass the US about its own flawed strategy. That is why we need an inquiry. It is an enormous problem and it is going to go on indefinitely.
	Even in the US, where the call for withdrawal gets ever louder and the Democrat party has tried to take up and echo the call in order to win elections, there is no honesty about what is being recommended. What the US really wants to do is remain in Iraq with permanent military bases in order to dominate the Gulf, withdraw to barracks and have a pro-American Government in Iraq. That is the policy. The problem is that that is unacceptable to the Iraqi people. Poll after poll has shown that they want a withdrawal as soon as possible. That means—this is my serious and sincere view and the view of many others—that the insurgency will continue. The trouble, bloodshed, anger and hatred in the middle east will get worse. More people will die and the Muslim community across the world, about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) has just spoken, will go on being angry and upset. More and more young people will become convinced that the only way to get justice in the middle east is to engage in violence. This whole situation is acting as a massive recruiting sergeant for terrorism, making the problem that it is meant to address ever worse and bringing our own country into terrible disrepute.
	Given the situation of our soldiers, it is right that they should be withdrawn. I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) about that, but I agree that, irrespective of our views about how we got here, it is right to advise about the positive way forward. I believe that there is a positive way forward and that the Iraq Study Group produced a superb piece of work that points the way forward, but it is certainly not the policy being adopted by the US Administration or, to their shame, by the UK Government.
	The Iraq Study Group said that the US has to make it clear that it wants to withdraw as rapidly as possible and give up its aspiration to permanent bases in Iraq. It should then seek to negotiate a withdrawal as quickly and responsibly as possible. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr wants other countries, particularly Muslim countries, to come in and help the Iraqis, there has to be a handover to some sort of Government of national unity—an end to the occupation, which would then trigger the willingness of the international community to come in and help the people of Iraq to stabilise their country.
	There is now interesting and important evidence that Moqtada al-Sadr is in talks with the organisers of the Sunni insurgency about coming together in a potential Government of national unity, calling for an end to the occupation and then uniting against the al-Qaeda elements who are inciting civil war and violence between Sunni and Shia. That is the way forward and the Iraq Study Group outlined it as a possible policy.
	The Iraq Study Group noted, of course, that if we want the help of Syria and Iran, things will have to be done. In the case of Syria, we will need to resolve the problem of the Golan heights. The report goes onto say that there has to be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine issue on the basis of the 1967 boundaries, the sharing of Jerusalem and a negotiated solution to the right of return. In other words, the Iraq Study Group, which comprised leading Republicans and Democrats who consulted all over the world—including our own Prime Minister—said that the only way out of Iraq is a change of US policy in the middle east. That is the right answer.
	If the UK would say to the US, "We support the Iraq Study Group and would work with you that basis, but if not, we are out because we are doing no good in Iraq, our young people are dying in vain and we are inflaming the problem.", we could all get back together and be proud of our Government instead of being ashamed of how they have proceeded in error and, I am afraid, deceit.
	I believe that dishonesty about why we went into Iraq helps to explain the chaos that we are now in. It never was about weapons of mass destruction: the Butler report summarised what the intelligence said and there was clearly no imminent threat. People believed that some scientists were doing work somewhere, but it was obvious that there was no imminent threat. Butler put that on the record. It was not about the nature of the Saddam Hussein regime either. The Prime Minister said in answer to a question—I think from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), but I am not sure—that if Saddam Hussein would co-operate with the weapons inspectors, he could remain. That was not the reason why.
	The real reason why was set out in "The Project for the New American Century" by leading neo-cons, who then went into Government. They thought that they would be welcomed when they went into Iraq because they believed their own propaganda. The purpose was, however, to remove American bases from Saudi Arabia—the land of the holy places, where they are absolutely not welcome and are seen as an outrage by the rest of the Muslim world—and place permanent bases in Iraq, from which to control the Persian gulf. That was the purpose—that is the purpose—and it is resulting in continuing insurgency, violence, divisions, death and destruction in the middle east.
	We need an inquiry because we have dishonesty and bad faith, and we have a strategy that will not work. Surely it is the duty of the House of Commons to consider how we got here and to look at the available alternatives and find a way forward.

Clare Short: I shall come to that point in a few minutes.
	The second reason why we need an inquiry is that the overwhelming majority of the people in the UK believe that they were lied to about the reasons for the war. Troops are still being deployed, and soldiers are still being injured, losing their lives and taking the lives of Iraqis for reasons that the majority in this country disbelieve. Our troops find that very distressing. A year or so ago, I was stopped in Whitehall by an officer in civilian clothes, who said that the worst thing that a soldier ever had to do was to talk to the parents of someone who had died under their command, and that when their country thinks that the war is dishonest and does not believe in it, that duty becomes unbearable. So part of our duty is to our troops. We need to get the truth out there and to treat them with respect. We should not ask them to serve, to risk their lives and to take the lives of others for reasons that their country does not believe in.
	The third reason why we need an inquiry is to establish why there was such a failure to prepare for post-conflict Iraq. This is the issue that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) raised a moment ago. I was involved in this, and my view is that the failure properly to prepare flowed from the deceit on the route to war. Preparations were made in the State Department, in the United Nations and in my old Department in co-ordination with other humanitarian agencies across the world for a post-conflict situation in which the occupying powers would honour their obligations under the Geneva convention. The occupying powers have a duty under that convention to keep order, but they do not have the right to reorganise the political institutions of a country. Under such arrangements, there was an expectation of internationalisation and international support.
	I went to a meeting of the World Bank shortly after the war. Of course, there were fantastic divisions there, but we worked to say that, whatever the divisions on the reasons for the war, if we could internationalise the reconstruction, please let us all come back in together to help Iraq to rebuild itself. What happened? With just months to go before the date chosen for the war, the President of the United States scrapped all the State Department's preparations—which were massive and had been made in co-ordination with the rest of the world—and set up a unit in the Pentagon, which started making preparations from scratch. A British general, General Tim Cross, was put in as its deputy. He told me that they were moving in the furniture just a couple of months before the date chosen for the war.
	The answer is not that people failed to prepare. The preparations that were properly made according to international law for conditions that would have brought international co-operation were thrown away because of the reasons for the war. America wanted, as in Japan and South Korea, to be dominant in Iraq, to have bases and a pro-American Government there. It did not want internationalisation or a UN lead. That is all extremely important, and we need to learn those lessons if we are to begin to put things right.
	The fourth reason why we need an inquiry is to examine the role of the Attorney-General. The full legal advice was never given to the Cabinet. I have never been a constitutionalist, but I am still utterly shocked by what took place. When I read the full legal advice, I still cannot believe that we were never given it, and that the legal advice that was given to the Cabinet and to Parliament was so different—

Clare Short: I think that lots of people supported the Prime Minister but now feel that they were deceived by him. People all over the country have that view.
	My view on what happened over the legal advice is that the disgrace goes beyond the present holderof the office. The Attorney-General's role needs re-examination. On any vote in which the House of Commons is to be given the right to decide on war or peace, it will need its own legal advice. We cannot go on with the present arrangements, with the pretence of independence in authority but with political pressure that causes someone to modify their legal advice.
	The fifth major reason why we need an inquiry is that the people of the UK have lost faith in their politicians and political institutions. There has always been a healthy disrespect for politicians in this country, but now it nears contempt. We need to be honest about what has happened, and to change our institutional arrangements as well as our policy in Iraq, in order to get back the faith and respect of the people of the UK.

Michael Meacher: I voted for the Iraq war, which I now bitterly regret. I therefore make these remarks much more in a spirit of contrition than of rebuke. I strongly believe that this issue will not go away. It continues to damage public opinion, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has just so rightly said, and, like all painful traumas, it can only be exorcised by facing up to it, warts and all, and by an admission of mistakes, misjudgments and misrepresentations being made, with a full account being given of the changes to be implemented to prevent any such events from happening again.
	That is the only sure way in which to restore confidence and trust, which is what my party is now, rightly, urgently trying to do. Indeed, that has been the central refrain in the leadership and deputy leadership election contests in the party. The Chancellor—the Prime Minister in waiting—has made it clear that he wants a much more open and transparent form of Government to be a key means of winning backthe votes that we have lost. I say to him that the Iraq war is unquestionably the place to begin. A wholly independent and thorough inquiry—not only into the war's origins, which have already been explored to some degree, but into its handling and its aftermath—will do far more to restore confidence and trust than any other single issue.
	I take the Government's point that there have already been four separate inquiries, but none of them addresses what is clearly still needed. The Hutton inquiry was widely dismissed as a whitewash. The members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Committee reports to the Prime Minister. For all its seniority and expertise, which are undoubted, it cannot be regarded as wholly independent. The Foreign Affairs Committee is inhibited because it does not have access to the crucial intelligence data. The Butler review, to be fair, did produce a pretty damning report which drew attention to many high-level failures. However, it concluded that no one was really responsible, and drew no conclusions about how a debacle of this kind could be prevented in the future. None of the inquiries dealt with the handling or the aftermath of the war. What has happened since the war is, arguably, even more important.
	Having said that, I do not endorse either the proposal in the Opposition motion that a committee of Privy Councillors should undertake the inquiry. Apart from the fact that the matter was debated less than eight months ago, which makes it hard to believe that there is not a measure of political opportunism in raising it again so soon, I do not believe that it would provide the degree of independence that is vital for the purpose. The committee of inquiry, which I strongly endorse in principle, should be headed by a senior judge or similar person. However, unlike in the caseof Lord Hutton, the chairman, members and terms of reference of the inquiry should all have to be approved by Parliament. The acceptance of its independence would therefore be assured from the outset. The appropriate Select Committee might be the Public Administration Committee, whose Chairman I am glad to see in the Chamber today.
	A great deal of information relevant to such an inquiry has already been documented. However, several key issues that led directly to the Iraqi disaster have simply been left hanging in the air—they have been debated endlessly, but no conclusions or determination about a different Government action later have been reached. No recommendation has been made for reform to prevent a repetition in future.

Michael Meacher: I do believe that it is a good starting point. As I said, I am very much in favour of a committee of inquiry in principle. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall try to spell out how it should operate.
	The most important issue that has been left hanging in the air is the interface between the intelligence services and the political decision-makers. I noted that the previous Secretary of State for Defence said only last month:
	"I saw the intelligence from the first time I came into the office in May 1999—week in, week out—that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction".
	On the other hand, a few months before that, Carne Ross, a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York in the run-up to the invasion, revealed:
	"There was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of chemical weapons, biological weapons or nuclear material".
	Those statements are totally inconsistent. Whatever the truth, and none of us can be sure either way—and that is my point—a much tighter degree of parliamentary oversight is clearly needed to ensure the integrity of the intelligence services' advice. The committee of inquiry ought to spell out in some detail how that might work.
	The Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war was only disclosed in full, well after the event, because of the fear that it would be leaked bit by bit, damagingly, in the immediate run-up to the 2005 general election. That is not an acceptable precedent. We need a firm Government commitment that the Attorney-General's advice will always, in such circumstances, be published uncensored. Furthermore, reference should also be made to any significant dissenting voices, such as Elizabeth Wilmshurst's from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and to the grounds on which that dissent is argued.

Michael Meacher: The second bit of advice is the crucial one. I understand my hon. and learned Friend's point about the distinction between the two. We only learned in full—in more than 17 pages—the Attorney General's detailed recommendations to the Prime Minister because of the accident of an upcoming general election. Thatis totally unsuitable. In such circumstances, all the recommendations of the Attorney-General, especially those carrying the most authority, should be made available.
	The inquiry should examine the key question of the accountability of the Prime Minister to Parliament in such circumstances, and how it can be strengthened. I very much welcome the Chancellor's commitment to a parliamentary debate and vote before Britain is taken to war in future, which is absolutely right. The implication of the Iraq saga in that context is clear: the evidence to justify a decision to go to war must be made available to Parliament in detail, involving, where time allows, rapid and rigorous scrutiny by a Select Committee, which would then report to the House to inform the debate.
	None of the four pre-existing inquiries examined in much detail the aftermath of the war. Arguably, the lessons to be learned from that are even more important. The prime question is: what were the real objectives of the US-led invasion? To what extent did the UK agree with those objectives? How consistent were they with the creation of a democratic, secure, independent Iraq, which we would all wish to see?
	Many key issues deserve close attention from an inquiry, and have so far not been examined at all. Was there, initially, a reconstruction plan for the recovery of Iraqi industry and civil society? If so, what part did Britain play in it? Did we seek to avert the crass mistakes of the early Bremer administration, including the rapid disbanding of Iraqi military and security forces, the almost total neglect of essential, basic public services—clean drinking water, electricity and hygiene—in favour of taking over the oilfields, and the 100 or so Bremer orders for the wholesale privatisation of Iraq? Did we have any role in any of those decisions? I would also expect a committee of inquiry to examine what partthe UK authorities might have made played in the machinations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred, behind the current Iraqi oil law, which looks set to deprive the Iraqi state, utterly debilitated as it is, of its one, enormous, indigenous asset.
	Of course, the most important question now, the Iraqi invasion and occupation being seen for the catastrophe that they are, concerns the exit strategy. Britain's own Army chiefs, public opinion in this country—consistently—and, indeed, the stated demands of the Iraqi Prime Minister are all calling for a speedy departure from Iraq. Of course a committee of inquiry will not settle a matter of that kind, but I think it could usefully give advice on some of the options and issues relating to it. I therefore believe that a further committee of inquiry, different from and more far-reaching than those that have preceded it, is still very much needed.
	As I have said, I do not support the Opposition motion because I think it is wrongly structured, and the right structure is central in this instance. However, I do believe that the establishment of such an inquiry in a different form, with the kind of remit that I have sketched out and subject to the full approval of the House, cannot be delayed indefinitely. I hope very much that the Government will return to this issue very soon.

Tony Wright: I want to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) by saying something about Parliament, because he is on to something extremely important, and we should not give away to other people Parliament's ability to do things that Parliament should do. First, however, I shall return to a remark by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who said that what had happened in Iraq was, in his words, predicted and predictable. I could not help but think, when I listened to him, that that was not something that the Conservative party—the official Opposition—knew at the time. If so, the massed ranks of Her Majesty's Opposition would not have been urging action on the Government. Indeed, the then leader of the party was irritated whenever Labour Members raised questions about the basis on which the strategy was being conducted. Therefore, a certain amount of humility and contrition is required on the Conservative Benches. As it happened, Conservative Members had it within their power to prevent the action from taking place. It has to be said that the questions were being asked entirely from the Labour Benches, and the people who dissented—although there were some honourable exceptions—were overwhelmingly to be found on the Labour Benches.
	The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was one of those exceptions, was right to use the words "predicted and predictable" is that many of us, even when we wanted to—I was certainly in that category—could not find a way to make the story and the narrative that were being given to us about the basis for taking military action stack up. I wanted it to stack up. I have felt guilty since about not supporting action to take the world's worst tyrant out of the picture, but the fact is that I could not find a way of telling the story which made it add up.
	I could not see a way of telling the story that altered the fact that Iraq was a regime contained. It was extremely vile, but it was not threatening us or the security of the world. We knew that it was not connected to al-Qaeda. In fact we knew that it was important in suppressing al-Qaeda. We thought that there was an agenda on the American right that was pushing military action as part of a wider plan for the middle east and the world, but we could not understand why we wanted to attach ourselves to it. Probably most importantly of all, we also thought that the action was likely to increase terrorism rather than to diminish it. The huge tragedy is that in the wake of 9/11 the world, with very few exceptions, turned in solidarity to the United States, yet within two years that solidarity was blown away by what happened next.
	That is why the situation was predicted and predictable. It was pretty obvious, if we explored the story that was being given, that that was a likely consequence. Indeed, we discovered afterwards that the Intelligence and Security Committee had said in terms that terrorism was likely to be increased by the action that was taken.

Tony Wright: I realise that that is the line that is given—that we were all woefully misled by the Prime Minister—but large numbers of Members of the House were not woefully misled by the Prime Minister. They interrogated the evidence, made political judgments and came to rather shrewd conclusions. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea has just told us that that is entirely what should have happened, so it cannot be simply that the Opposition were misled by what the Prime Minister said. The story is deeper, richer and more troubling than that.
	I now want to talk about Parliament, because that element is the bit of the Opposition motion's call for an inquiry that I dissent from. The Opposition are mistaken to call for a committee of Privy Councillors. Again, there is a story behind what happened. A couple of years ago the Public Administration Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry into inquiries; it was the first time that that had been done. We looked into the whole history of inquiries—who called them, how they were organised, and the whole shooting match. At the time the Government were introducing their own Bill—the Inquiries Bill—to regularise how a range of them were conducted. What became clear as a result of our inquiry was that Parliament had, through a complex process, effectively abandoned the field.
	In the 19th century the parliamentary inquiry was the dominant form of inquiry. Reference has been made to the first world war and the Dardanelles campaign, but we could go all the way back to the Crimean war. The House established a Committee of inquiry to report on the condition of the Army before Sebastopol. Gladstone spoke against it, and it produced the downfall of the Aberdeen Government. However, as the party system solidified at the beginning of the 20th century, it became difficult for Parliament to undertake dispassionate cross-party inquiries. The example that is always cited is the Committee on the Marconi scandal. That parliamentary inquiry divided on party lines, and has been described as the first great whitewash. As a consequence, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 was introduced, which effectively took inquiries outside this House, retaining only the requirement for a resolution of this House to set up such an inquiry. The establishment of an inquiry was still anchored in a parliamentary resolution, although the inquiry itself was taken outside the House. That in turn was also criticised. The Salmon commission looked into the matter, and now we have this Government's Inquiries Act 2005.
	The overall consequence has been that Parliament has been taken out of the picture. In our report of a couple of years ago, my Committee argued that we should not abandon that territory. There is a category of inquiry on issues of great political importance which only parliamentary politics can get its teeth into. I say, with great respect, that such matters are not for judges. We heard great evidence from the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who emphatically said that there is a category of politically contentious inquiries in which judges should not be involved.
	Therefore, there is a need for a specific kind of inquiry on matters that are not appropriate for the judge route or other routes—but Parliament has abandoned conducting such inquiries and is unable to undertake them through its existing Select Committee system. I am referring to forensic, fact-finding inquiries, such as the example we heard about in respect of the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is why I have a reservation about the form of inquiry proposed in the Opposition motion. We asked Lord Butler about this matter, and he agreed that it would have been better if his inquiry had been a parliamentary inquiry. He also pointed out that four of the five members of his team were parliamentarians, so it would have been quite easy to have made it a parliamentary inquiry. For the category of inquiries I am referring to, it is constitutionally important that Parliament as an institution can say, "This subject is of such great public importance that Parliament must set up a parliamentary commission of inquiry, beyond its Select Committee system." That would involve bringing in outsiders, as required. However, Parliament must be able to do that.

Adam Price: I warmly congratulate those on the official Opposition Front Bench for bringing back to the table the call for a comprehensive inquiry into the Iraq war, which was first tabled last autumn.
	The motion is not about apportioning blame. It is about the House taking responsibility. To echo the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), it is about this House recognising our collective responsibility— notwithstanding that a minority of us voted against the motion before the House four years ago—and signalling our collective determination to put right the colossal wrong that was inflicted on the people of Iraq and this country by that vote. We cannot bring back the dead, but we can honour their memory in our sincere commitment to learn the painful lessons of these last four years. Only then can we rebuild a relationship of trust between the Government and the governed in this country, and between this country and the countries of the rest of the world.
	As we have heard in this debate, the cost of this war has been immense in human terms: 150 British servicemen and women, more than 3,500 Americans and more than half a million Iraqi civilians. Two million people have left Iraq and a further 2 million have been displaced internally. Millions more, especially the young, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), are scarred by hate, hostility and a passive acceptance of, or even positive support for, continued violence. The war has galvanised Islamic extremism, destroyed Iraq's basic infrastructure, turned it into a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists, exacerbated the divisions within Iraq and fomented a civil war. It has diverted our attention from the very real threat of al-Qaeda, weakened our standing in the world, and undermined the United Nations and the rule of international law. All in all, it has made the world a far less safe and hospitable place for decades to come. This is the worst foreign policy disaster in more than half a century, and it would be a dereliction of our duty in this place were we not to hold an inquiry into this terrible debacle.
	As has already been said, the damage done is not just the denting of public confidence in this Government; confidence in democracy itself, in any Government of any hue who will be faced in future with matters of peace and war, has been undermined. Indeed, on looking at the facts, the picture of manipulation and distortion and the absence of accountability in any real or meaningful sense is troubling to all of us—of any party and of none—who are concerned for the integrity of our democratic system. The Prime Minister developed more than ever before not a collegiate but a presidential style of Government, with no effective input from the Cabinet or from Parliament because it and we were not in full possession of the facts.
	As it happens, I do not doubt that the Prime Minister genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and the same is probably true of the Bush Administration. Why else were hundreds of millions of dollars budgeted for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction that never actually materialised? The question is: what was the basis for the Prime Minister's belief? In a sense, it was belief itself—faith itself. As a former director of strategic proliferation in the US State Department, Greg Thielmann, said in July 2003:
	"this administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers".
	The Prime Minister subtly shifted his position from saying that Iraq had the potential to develop WMD—in the same way that Iran has now—to saying that it actually possessed them, when there was no basis for that shift in the information emanating from the intelligence services. What was a potential became an article of faith, and then became an established fact. He told journalists that Iraq had
	"actually acquired weapons of mass destruction"
	and that the threat was
	"not in any doubt at all".
	He said that Iraq was in possession of
	"major amounts of chemical and biological weapons",
	yet there was no concrete evidence for any of this. It was assertion, which we now know to be entirely false. The intelligence at the time in both the United Kingdom and the United States was heavily qualified and non-committal, but the facts were fixed around the policy.
	As far as the dodgy dossier is concerned, the serious charge levelled by the Butler report is not that the Government fabricated intelligence, but that they distorted it by leaving out the qualifications and the caveats. As Hans Blix so eloquently put it, the Government put exclamation marks where there should have been question marks, in effect misleading the Cabinet, Parliament, the Labour party, the public and the international community. It is our duty now in this place to find out how and why that course of action was pursued.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood was absolutely right in saying that the poor judgment and lack of candour that characterised the run-up to the war have also featured heavily in its disastrous aftermath. As we have heard, the most fateful decision of all was coalition provisional authority order No. 2, on the dissolution of the Iraqi army and the police force. Simply sacking close to three quarters of a million people—many of them armed, as we now know—and turning them into a vast army of the unemployed, alienated, humiliated and angry, was a monumental misjudgment from which Iraq has still not recovered.
	The policy of privatising the state-owned enterprises had the same effect on the middle classes in Iraq, many of whom were employed by those companies. Interestingly enough, the only pre-invasion, Saddam era economic legislation that remained in place was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining. It would be interesting to hear what the Government's view on that was at the time. The inevitable result of the wave of economic insecurity that engulfed Iraq was insurgency, civil war and political instability.

Richard Younger-Ross: The reasons why we went to war, which the hon. Gentleman referred to in his opening comments, could perhaps be dealt with by a review at a later date, but the points that he is making now are the very reason why we need an inquiry now. Reconstruction is still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we need to learn those lessons so that we can make progress and make sure that we get Iraq and Afghanistan right, along with any other areas in which we are involved in a similar way.

Adam Price: Yes, and of course, we are still struggling to get the al-Maliki Government to reverse the de-Ba'athification policy.
	Throughout the occupation and the aftermath of the war, the Government, conscious of the pressures of negative public opinion, have consistently underestimated the strength of the insurgency, consistently overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's Government and security forces, and failed to provide Parliament with an accurate assessment of the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Given the catastrophic failure at the heart of the Government, to which the enduring crisis in Iraq surely testifies, the lack of a proper inquiry to date is an abdication of our responsibility in this House, which we must put right tonight.
	Let us turn briefly to the contrary arguments. The argument about the four inquiries, which the Government present in their amendment, has been categorically demolished by several hon. Members. The shortcomings of the Select Committee process, which I would like to amend, are there for all to see from the comments that we have heard. As far as the Hutton and Butler inquiries are concerned, the terms of reference were deliberately—in my view—drawn too narrowly in order to preclude them from examining the wider issues with which we have concerned ourselves in this debate.
	The second argument, which says that the time is not right, flies in the face of constitutional precedent. I do not refer just to Norway and to the Dardanelles; there is a much more pertinent precedent. When the British Army was last bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq, then known as Mesopotamia, in the summer of 1916, the official—Conservative—Opposition tabled a motion calling for a commission of inquiry into the Mesopotamia campaign, its inception and its conduct.
	The motion was not moved, because they did not have to move it. The Government of the day accepted the principle, conceded the point and establishedthe Mesopotamia commission in August 1916, while British troops—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—were still in Basra. Indeed, while the commission was still investigating, there was a further push to central Iraq, to Baghdad. There was a commission of inquiry during a campaign that had cost the lives of 90,000 British troops.
	If it was possible for the Government of the day to hold such an inquiry then, while the liberty of this country was at stake, why is it not possible now? One of the main charges that the commission laid at the Government in the Mesopotamia inquiry was that they were guilty of what it called in an elegant phrase, the misuse of reticence, or the culling of inconvenient facts to protect the official line—a practice that could as happily describe the Government's Iraq policy today as it could the then Government's policy 90 years ago.
	This House cannot remain reticent; we must speak out. In the words of the special prosecutor in the case of the White House aide, Lewis Libby, who was sentenced this week:
	"We need to make the statement that the truth matters ever so much."
	It matters even more in "this little room", to use Churchill's phrase, because of what it signifies to so many millions of people. I hope that despite the difficulties that I understand right hon. and hon. Government Members will face, it will be possible for the House tonight to unite not behind party but behind the most basic principle that in this place, above all others, we must accept our responsibility if we are not to repeat our mistakes.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall, indeed, be brief.
	Of course, there must be and there will be an inquiry. I favour the type of inquiry that the motion sets out, and I have already indicated why I do so in an intervention. The Government's reasons for opposing the motion are untenable. To deal with them individually and briefly, of course we must not damage or undermine the integrity of the elected Government of Iraq; but far more important than that, we must not damage or undermine the integrity of the elected Government of the United Kingdom. One great success of Iraq was the millions who voted in their election: one great failure of the United Kingdom is the millions who did not vote in ours. One reason why they were alienated from the political process was undoubtedly Iraq.
	It is myopic and false to suggest that there have been a total of four separate inquiries, and I shall not deal with that suggestion, because it has been rehearsed on many occasions. However, it is far more myopic and false to suggest that there have been four inquiries that have exonerated the Government, because they manifestly have not. The Butler inquiry in particular did not exonerate the Government. At paragraph 472, it said:
	"We have also recorded our surprise that policy-makers and the intelligence community did not, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became increasingly apparent, re-evaluate in early-2003 the quality of the intelligence."
	Of course, Lord Butler was speaking mandarin, a language in which he is fluent. In mandarin, "surprised" does not mean "Good Lord! Is that the time?" It means to be confronted with facts and assertions that are utterly incomprehensible. The question that he asked in vacuo was, "Why didn't policy makers re-evaluate what they had sought in early 2002 when taking us to war in 2003?" He could not ask the question because of the terms of reference within which he was enchained.
	One particular reason why the issues were not revisited was that the decision to invade had already been taken—irrespective of the intelligence that was subsequently obtained. That, above all, is one matter than an inquiry must consider. The decision is to be found—mentioned not in the debate, but many times in America—in the so-called Downing street memo or minute, which  The Sunday Times published in 2005, in an uncharacteristic service to this debate. It relates to a Downing street minute in July 2002, which records the report of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, or "C", as he was known. It reported that he had come from Washington, where, he said:
	"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
	Not one word of that reached this House in the subsequent debates. Not once were we told that it was the belief of the SIS and its head that America had already made up its mind, whatever the intelligence. None of it came here. That is the first matter that must be investigated.
	The second matter, which has been touched upon on numerous occasions, is the Attorney-General's legal advice. On 7 March 2003 he produced for the Prime Minister an opinion that was hedged with doubt. He said that a reasonable case can be made; but two paragraphs later he said that a contrary case may easily and reasonably be made. Not a word of that reached the Cabinet or this House. Ten days later, a wholly contrary and completely un-hedged and unqualified opinion on the legality of war was given to the Cabinet. Not one word of explanation has been heard by this House for that sudden change to what has manifestly been perceived to be an illegal conflict.
	Those matters must be resolved, and they are so important that party politics must be put on one side in order to obtain the inquiry. A fellow Back Bencher asked me a little while ago when we were discussing the debate, "Are you going to vote with the Tories?" The answer is no. I am not going to vote with the Tories: I am going to vote for an inquiry. I shall do so at every conceivable available opportunity, because it is in the interests of the country, of Parliament, and coincidentally, of my own party under its new leadership that we resolve this matter now.

Gerald Howarth: I always like to try to help the hon. and learned Gentleman.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made a compelling case in principle for an inquiry of the type he set out, and the debate has illustrated that his view is widely supported on both sides of the House. It is thus extremely disappointing that despite the fact that the Foreign Secretary has had seven months to consider the arguments my right hon. Friend made previously, she has not been persuaded of them—unlike her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Defence, both of whom have accepted the case for an inquiry, although they have not put a timetable on it. The Foreign Secretary seems to be out of step with many members of the current Cabinet and—who knows?—possibly the next one, too.
	The Foreign Secretary not only said that her position was unchanged but made the astonishing remark that accountability was now self-indulgent introspection. It is astonishing that she should have equated the accountability in the House with narrow introspection. We make no apologies for holding this debate. She described it as opportunistic. If it is opportunistic to give right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on a matter of major national importance, we are proud to have facilitated it and proud to have done so again today.
	Furthermore, in another astonishing contribution, the Foreign Secretary responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) by making it clear that she saw no merit in looking back to examine the lead-up to the war in Iraq. In essence, she argued that past experience can inform neither the present nor the future. That is a serious indictment of her policy, and if it is the Government's policy it is a serious indictment of their strategy, too. If we cannot learn from our experience, we are not doing a service as Members. It is significant that some Members who supported the war in the past have said that we owe it to the public to revisit the matter—the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is one such Member.
	I offer three reasons why an independent Franks-type inquiry would benefit all of us, Ministers included. First, there is now almost universal recognition that there was a woeful lack of debate in the UK about post-conflict reconstruction. Paradoxically, in Washington in the six months leading up to the war there was talk of little else, but in this country—silence. The Government would not make time for a debate because they did not want to give their Back Benchers the impression that they had already signalled to the US Government a tacit commitment to provide British military support.
	We had to initiate the debate and we did so on30 January 2003, when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said:
	"If the wider war on terrorism is to succeed, it is crucial that we do not forfeit vital international support by pursuing a war against Saddam Hussein without a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for helping the innocent Iraqi people."
	During that debate, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden but many other hon. Friends tried to get an answer from the then Secretary of State for International Development about what precisely the British Government had it in mind to do post-conflict. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)—I am pleased that she is in the Chamber today—gave a lot of background about the circumstances and the lead-up, about Saddam Hussein and so on. However, she gave the House very little information about exactly what the Government's strategy—indeed, the allies' strategy—was for post-conflict reconstruction. All she said was:
	"I have had talks with the various UN humanitarian organisations and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which leads co-ordination of the UN effort. I think that the preparations are as good as they can be."—[ Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1043-54.]
	That was virtually all the information given to the House.
	The result was that Parliament had almost no opportunity to test the Government's post-conflict reconstruction policies—how the country was to be run after the decapitation of the Saddam regime, let alone the rebuilding of Iraq's crumbling infrastructure. It was interesting that Washington had a clear plan, although as my hon. Friends have suggested, it did not last beyond the first round of gunfire. None the less, there was a plan, which was to leave in place those who were running the infrastructure in Iraq, but that was not consistent with removing the Ba'athists from the regime. Save for the opportunities afforded by the Opposition, the House could not debate those matters and we are pleased to offer Members a further opportunity to discuss them today.
	As General Sir Mike Jackson, until last year head of the British Army, made clear in the Dimbleby lecture last December, the solution in Iraq does not lie simply with the military. He said:
	"I want to say something about across-government capabilities. Particularly in post-conflict situations, it is not just a matter for the military. The political and military approaches must be as one. Complex and difficult conditions follow war, ethnic conflict, and failed states. My analogy here is the strands of a rope. Individual strands are just that, they have this or that breaking strength. But when you weave them together you actually produce something that is stronger than the sum of its parts. And these strands for me are obviously security, the political dimension, humanitarian, and economic—at least those four. And you don't have long to get going. There is a sense that you must make a difference within a hundred days, or you will have a lost opportunity. It gives me no pleasure to say that I fear this was not the case where Iraq was concerned."
	Our armed forces are simply brilliant at getting things done quickly. I give the House an example. When the Select Committee visited Iraq less than three months after the war ended, we were given a briefing by a young captain from the Royal Monmouthshire Militia Royal Engineers and a senior warrant officer from the Army Air Corps. Within 13 weeks of the end of the war, they had already undertaken the refurbishment of 13 schools in Basra—a phenomenal achievement. We went to see DFID. What was it doing? Still designing the forms. There was a grotesque lack of co-ordination between Departments, which is a real indictment. The military had done their bit; they had fulfilled their obligations, but unfortunately the civil side had not. There was no effective follow-up because there was no plan.
	General Jackson argued that there should have been much greater co-ordination between Departments—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). The current Secretary of State for International Development seems to be moving in that direction, too. Recently, he said:
	"Using 'hard power' alone will not be enough to tackle terrorist groups".
	The second purpose of an inquiry would be to consider how we should adjust our whole military posture to the new type of military operations we face, including at the tactical level: whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen are getting the right training package for that type of warfare; whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, we have the right equipment for the task; whether we have the correct balance of forces, and what needs to be done so that we do not become disproportionately reliant on urgent operational requirements—a kind of panic-buying formula—to make up the shortfall in equipment.
	I do not believe that such an investigation would be disruptive of ongoing operations, still less that the armed forces would resent it. Between us, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I represent a large slug of the British Army and we have not heard it said anywhere that such an inquiry would be damaging to the morale of those on the ground. They have acquitted themselves with enormous courage and dignity in a military operation that they know does not command universal approval at home. I believe that they would welcome any measure that would help to build public confidence that lessons have been learned.
	Significantly, when the Foreign Secretary was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Medway whether the military had given an indication that they would support an inquiry, she could not answer that question. Indeed, the Minister of State responsible for the armed forces could not give her any comfort, either. They both know that her point was bogus and invalid.
	The third reason why we need an inquiry has been set out by many right hon. and hon. Members: the four inquiries on which the Government rely as evidence that the House has had the opportunity to consider all the issues that have been debated today did not consider the issues in the round or in the way in which many right hon. and hon. Members would like. Simply speaking, those inquiries did not deal with the issues, or dealt with them partially and indifferently. We have heard at length how the Select Committee was treated contemptuously by the Government.
	I make no apologies for mentioning in this debate and in this week, which commemorates the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, the issue of combat stress among our brave service personnel. We are embarked on two war-fighting operations that involve high-intensity combat, yet unlike the second world war, when civilians in London and Coventry were being bombed out of their homes, or the Falklands campaign, when the entire nation was engaged and glued to the evening news to find the latest reports from the front, today the rest of us are enjoying the cricket—I do not know the result of the test match—[Hon. Members: "We won."] We won, so the rest of us are enjoying the cricket, the motor racing and other relatively peaceful summer pursuits. This is a serious issue, and I do not want to demean it, but I want to make the point that the rest of the nation is enjoying the summer season, while our soldiers, sailors and airmen are engaged in bloody battles in the intense heat of the middle east. That experience will have an enduring effect on some of them.
	I met such personnel yesterday at a Falklands drumhead service in Aldershot military cemetery in my constituency, and they are still suffering after the Falklands campaign. It is said that more men have died by their own hands since 1982 than the 255 who gave their lives 6,000 miles away. I am aware of the Ministry of Defence's announcement today, and I welcome it, but it is insufficient to meet the challenge that we face. An inquiry of the kind that my right hon. and hon. Friends have proposed tonight would provide an opportunity to examine why we are doing so comparatively little to help to mend those with broken minds.
	There is a precedent. In the Dardanelles campaign, it was said that the remit of the commissioners in that inquiry in 1916 included the conduct of the war,
	"the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded and the responsibility of the Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in the theatre of war".—[ Official Report, 27 July 1916; Vol. 84,c. 1896-97.]
	I rest my case—there is a precedent as to why an inquiry should consider such matters, too.
	We cannot postpone an inquiry until a time that is politically convenient for the Government. We need to make a decision in principle now, and to assemble a wise and experienced panel of eminent persons who can consider the lead-up to the war, the use and interpretation of intelligence, the war itself and the post-conflict reconstruction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, we can do that perfectly well without inflicting any problems on those engaged in war-fighting operations.
	The reason for the relative urgency is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, while the events are fresh in people's minds and the e-mails have not been destroyed, we need to learn whatever lessons we can from the background to operations in Iraq so far, and to apply them to Afghanistan before it is too late.
	The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made the point that Parliament needs to assert its authority over the Executive—a point that wasalso made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I strongly support that, and I hope that the House will support our motion and the principle that an inquiry should be established, even if the precise format proposed on the Order Paper is not exactly what some right hon. and hon. Members would like. The point is the principle of the matter, and we owe it to the nation to be able to establish that.
	When Michael Foot called for a special commission to consider the Suez campaign, he cited something said by Lord John Russell in respect of the Crimea campaign a hundred years previously:
	"Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons...Inquiry is, indeed, the root of the powers of the House of Commons. Upon the result of the inquiry must depend the due exercise of those powers."—[ Official Report, 16 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 442.]
	I submit that this House should support this motion.

Adam Ingram: In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the reasons why the Government's view has not changed since we last debated the issue, not the least of which is that nothing has happened in that time that would require us to change our view.
	When we considered the issue in October last year, the motion was proposed by the nationalist parties—Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party. I well understand the motivation of those political parties in that and all other matters involving the United Kingdom: they have a visceral dislike of all things British. They do not want to be part of this united country. They want to engender disharmony, disillusionment and division in all that we do as a nation. They are driven not by what is right for our armed forces in the difficult tasks that they face in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but by cheap political posturing—no more than naked populism dressed up as principle.
	Although it is tempting, I would not ascribe such motives to the Conservative party. I fully accept that the role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition is to find grounds of substance on which to hold the Government to account. Like many of my hon. Friends, I spent too many years—10 years—on the Opposition Benches, and I know only too well the difficulties that that poses for party interest versus national interest.
	On this occasion, no matter how well argued the case—I pay tribute to the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who opened the debate—the Opposition have it wrong. A telling intervention by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made it clear that he thought so too. He made a specific point, and although the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is not usually flummoxed or stumped, he paused momentarily before he dealt with the issue.
	This is always a question of judgment. To undertake such an inquiry now would divert effort and attention from our prime task, which is to improve the condition of Iraq and find a more peaceful and stable future for its people.

Adam Ingram: Not at the moment. If the motion is passed, regardless of the fact that the Opposition claim that it is about establishing the principle of an inquiry, the media in this country would go into hyper-overdrive. We would have endless weeks and months of corrosive speculation about who would serve on the inquiry, what they would examine and even what their conclusions would be. I believe that it would be less of an inquiry and more of an inquisition.
	Many in this House and beyond have already come to their conclusions, yet at the same time they are calling for an inquiry. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made it clear that he already knows what the outcome of the inquiry should be. He carefully avoided the earlier view of his party that we should withdraw our forces by the autumn of this year. He did not mention whether that is still the policy of his party or not, irrespective of the conditions on the ground or the consequences. If there were such an inquiry, and those who have come to their conclusions already did not agree with its outcome, they would simply dismiss it as a whitewash and continue their assertions. I am reminded of former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan's comments about the Franks report on the Falklands conflict:
	"for 338 paragraphs, the Franks Report painted a splendid picture, delineating the light and shade. The glowing colours came out. When Franks got to paragraph 339, he got fed up with the canvas that he was painting and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it".
	That tends to happen with a lot of inquiries. If they do not reach the conclusions that those who call for them want, those people simply dismiss them out of hand.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should remember from his military training the definition of what constitutes a civil war. An elected Government are in place inIraq and are working assiduously to find solutions to complex problems. We and many other countries are assisting them. Yes, many lives have been lost, some of which, sadly, have been those of individuals serving alongside the Iraqi people to try to find peace and stability. However, that in itself does not constitute civil war.
	Some of the sectarian groupings and factions are beginning to talk about the need to find at least a point of contact with the Government of Iraq and coalition forces. There are thus glimmers of hope while the carnage goes on, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, is being perpetrated not by coalition forces, but by other forces, many of which are internal to Iraq but some of which are being stoked up and manipulated by external forces. Incidentally, if those forces were not in Iraq, they would be attacking us by other means. That is the harsh reality of the world in which we live.
	While this is a question of judgment, I do not believe that now is the time to set a date for a review or to reach a final decision on the best way to conduct such a review. This is a time to keep a focus on what is happening in Iraq in the here and now. Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I make no excuses for saying again that the situation in Iraq is too grave for us to divert our attentions from the immediate task of best supporting the Iraqi people as they begin taking control of their future.

Adam Ingram: I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to the answers that have already been given on that point. That inquiry examined not the past, but how to deal with the present —[ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer, or does he want to heckle? The inquiry was carried out to try to find solutions to some of the difficulties that we have to address. However, the motion calls for a different inquiry. I listened attentively to hon. Members' speeches. They talked about the past and some indeed argued that we should go beyond the immediate past and further back —[ Interruption. ] This is a multifaceted debate. The motion calls for an inquiry on the past to learn "lessons for the future", but the future is here and now. Baker-Hamilton sought to address what is in front of us.
	Our policy of focusing our efforts on the vital task of helping to develop the capacity and capability of the Iraqi authorities remains unchanged. That supportis valued by the Government of Iraq. Iraqi Ministers have publicly stated their appreciation of the help and support that we provide. We would be doing thema disservice if we were to allow our attention and efforts to be diverted from supporting them, even in part.
	We are not alone in giving support to Iraq. As hon. Members will know, we are one of the 25 countries that contribute to the multinational force in Iraq. I have little doubt that they, too, would not want our attention and efforts to be diverted from the vital task in hand. I make no apologies for saying that we must continue to give our armed forces our undivided attention and support as they help Iraq's security institutions. I earnestly believe that an inquiry would do nothing to assist them and, at worst, that it could undermine their efforts. This is a question of undermining not their morale—that charge has been made—but their efforts. If senior military personnel were called away from the front or other deployments so that they could be dedicated to revisiting the part that they played in the past when they had important jobs to do, it would take them away from the vital task in hand.
	As I have indicated, I think that we are making progress in Iraq. The transfer of Maysan province in southern Iraq to the Iraqi authorities and the handover of bases in Basra city to the Iraqi security forces are ample evidence of the sterling work done by UK forces and our coalition partners, especially on training and supporting the 10th division of the Iraqi army.
	I have heard nothing in this debate that would change the Government's position that it would be wrong to launch an inquiry on our experiences in Iraq at this time. There have been several independent committees of inquiry, including those of Lord Butler and Lord Hutton. Reports have been published by the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees of the House of Commons, while Ministry of Defence lessons-learned reports have also been produced. The questions of what happened at the time and what we have to do militarily have been well trodden over, as has the wider reach of what we are trying to do by giving humanitarian, governmental, social and economic support to the people of Iraq.
	We have had many opportunities to discuss the issue; we have done so time and again. I urge the House to support the amendment proposed by the Government for one very good reason: I believe it to be correct, and I believe the motion proposed by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to be wrong at this time. It would not in any way help the people of Iraq.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the vital contribution that the UK's six million carers make to society; welcomes recent announcements on carers including the Government review of the National Strategy for Carers, the New Deal for Carers and the Treasury report 'Aiming high for disabled children: better support for families' as steps towards an improvement in recognition and support for carers; notes that 54 per cent. of carers have given up work and one in five carers feel forced to do so; recognises the impacts which caring responsibilities have on family incomes, relative poverty and the health of carers themselves; is deeply concerned that an estimated 175,000 young people are carers of adults with the consequent pressures on them; calls on the Government to reduce the bureaucracy of social care provision that puts so much pressure on carers; and asks the Government to bring forward proposals for simplifying the benefit system in order to provide better support for carers and to ensure that the review of the National Strategy for Carers has both short term and long term objectives to enhance support for carers and to respond to the vital role played by carers in society.
	Today is the first day of carers week, the week when we as a country celebrate and recognise the extraordinary work of 6 million people who give up huge amounts of their time, energy and effort to look after disabled and older friends and relatives. Here is the problem: the social care budget, for which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is in his place, is responsible, is currently £19 billion, but Carers Week has estimated that if the amount of unpaid work done by those 6 million carers were costed, it would come to £57 billion. That means that if they stopped doing that work tomorrow and we wanted to continue with the same levels of care, we would have to quadruple the social care budget, just to stand still.
	It is not just a matter of the tax implications. There is a much more fundamental question of the type of society that we wish to be. Those of us on the Conservative Benches think that it is fundamentally right that wherever possible, the main caring role is undertaken by family and friends. That is what the carers want and what the cared-for person wants. The brutal truth is that because of demographic trends, the huge growth in the numbers of disabled children, and the rapidly ageing society, very soon 6 million carers will not be enough. If we want the number of carers to grow, we must be prepared to answer difficult questions about the role of the state and whether it enables and supports that caring role, or whether, as is all too often the case, it hinders and obstructs that role.
	This year's carers week theme is "My life as a carer". When I read that, it reminded me of the first carer whom I met when I was a prospective parliamentary candidate. For my sins, I had agreed to be a refuse collector for the day in my prospective constituency. I had spent the morning getting mucky and dirty picking up bottles, cans and newspapers for recycling and generally thinking that it was remarkable that anyone could want to do that kind of job full time. Then I spoke to the driver of the refuse van that I was with, and he told me that 10 years ago his wife had had an accident in their garden and had become wheelchair-bound and unable to get up, get dressed, wash or cook. Although he had been able to carry on his work, his life outside work had been turned completely upside down. Rather touchingly, he said to me that he would not change her for the world. The question is whether we are doing enough to help and support people who are playing that kind of extraordinary role; Conservative Members believe that we are not.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Motor Neurone Disease Association would agree with his view that we as a society have not done enough to recognise carers? Is he aware that the cost to the state of caringfor people suffering from motor neurone disease is 241 million per year, and that it would be a great deal more if we did not have the enormous voluntary contribution that he is discussing? It is about time that we recognised that and gave those carers the rights that I imagine he would agree with.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a huge challenge ahead in terms of how we finance social care provision, and it is particularly acute given the changing demographics. I hope that he will agree with what I am about to say about changing the system to ensure that much greater resources could be directed to carers.
	Two Under-Secretaries from two Departments are present, so let me deal with them one at a time. I shall start with the Department of Health. Let us consider the example that I gave of the refuse collector from Farnham. When his wife became disabled, he would have had to grapple with three levels of bureaucracy in the social service system. The first is the carer's needs assessment. For that, he would have to provide 140 different pieces of information spread over 40 pages and three different forms. Secondly, his wife would have to undergo possibly five different assessments. She would have to: go through a contact centre to ascertain whether she was eligible; do a fair access to community services assessment followed by a community care assessment, and she might have to undergo a specialist assessment for physiotherapy or occupational therapy. She then might have to do a further assessment, which is namedsomewhat ironicallythe single assessment process. If we examine the questions that both must answer, two thirds of the questions that he has to answer are already asked of her.
	Councils throughout the country would like to reduce the bureaucracy of the assessment process but legislation requires much of the assessing, thus making reduction difficult. The third layer of bureaucracy is perhaps the worst because it is hidden. It is the bureaucracy that providers of social care must tolerate. It comprises: reports to get star ratings from the Commission for Social Care Inspection; 26 performance assessment frameworks, including key thresholds; delivery and improvement standards reports for the Audit Commission; best value performance indicator reports; comprehensive performance assessment reports, and, for the Department of Health, the referrals, assessments and packages of care reports. All that bureaucracy comes at a huge price of 2 billion. That money is used in the assessment and commissioning process, not in delivering the services that carers and disabled people need.

David Taylor: I launched north-west Leicestershire carers week in the Marlene Reid centre, Coalville, this morning and many of the remarks I heard relate to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Would he be surprised at the figure provided to me by a Department for Work and Pensions representative on a stand in the exhibition that only 500,000 people of the 6 million carers,3 million of whom are not in work, actually apply for and receive carer's allowance under the current system? I have not had a chance to ratify it, but is it not a surprisingly low figure? Does he agree and can he authenticate that figure?

Jeremy Hunt: I would agree, but one of the reasons why many people do not want to claim it is that the form is so complicated and difficult. Yes, there are barriers in people's thinkingand these are difficult problems to overcomebut there are also practical barriers that we, as a state, can do something about, and the complexity of the form is one of them.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If he had attended the debate earlier this year about the life chances of disabled children, he would have heard in my speech that for families with disabled children, the number of questions that have to be answered is not 769, but 1,118. The situation is actually worse for those parents.
	What is most worrying about this complexity in the benefit system is how it makes it difficult for carers to work. All these benefits have different rules about the work that can or cannot be done. On carer's allowance, it is possible to earn 87 a week, but any more and the benefit is lost. For income support, anything above20 is deducted pound for pound. With housing benefit, anything more than 20 is deducted at a rate of 65 per cent., while with council tax benefit it is deducted at the rate of 20 per cent. More than half of carers give up work because of their role, but nearly half would like to work if they could, so why are we penalising them?
	This is not simply a moral question; it is also, because of the demographic crisis on our doorstep, a practical question. I was trying to think of a way to personalise this issue for the select group of hon. Members in their places this evening. The average age of an MP is actually 50. By the time the average MP becomes 75, there will be an additional 3.2 million 75-year-olds compared with the number of them today. In that period, because of the ageing population, there will be 500,000 fewer children; yet there will be 500,000 more disabled children and all of them will need carers. Six out of 10 men and seven out of 10 women will become carers at some point in their lifetime, but this involves children as well. There are also 175,000 child carers, and that number is growing.
	The choice is simple. Do we want family and friends to remain the mainstay of the caring that takes place in our society, or do we want to gamble by doing nothing to reform the bureaucracy of the social care system and the complexity of the benefits system? Do we wantto risk those carers giving up and passing that responsibility on to the state, which would be the worst possible outcome for cared-for people?

Ivan Lewis: I beg to move, To leave out from review to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
	of the first ever National Strategy for carers, the New Deal for Carers and the Treasury report Aiming high for disabled children: better support for families as steps towards an improvement in recognition and support for carers; notes that the review of the National Strategy includes a far reaching consultation with carers and others to make recommendations for the short, medium and long-term; further welcomes the extra 25 million for short-term home-based respite care for carers and the extra 3 million towards establishing a national helpline for carers announced in 2007; congratulates the Government for introducing in 2007 the new Expert Carers Programme; further notes that the Pensions Bill currently before Parliament includes a package of reforms to recognise the contribution made by carers and ensure that they can build up better pension records; further notes that the right to request flexible working introduced by this Government will help carers better balance their work and caring benefits; and further welcomes the substantial improvements made to the benefits available to low income carers.'.
	This issue should unite all sides of the House. National carers week provides us with an important opportunity to pay tribute to the remarkable contribution of carers to their families, friends and our society, and to shine a light on many remarkable and inspirational personal stories, but also to face up to our solemn responsibility to build a system and a society that address the needs of carers, both in fulfilling their caring role and as people who have a right to a life of their own. Observing national carers week is like throwing a pebble into the sea. It will generate a ripple but leave the vast expanse of oceanthe lives of 6 million carerslargely untouched. One week is a catalyst; our challenge is to make a difference 52 weeks a year and 365 days a year to the carers in every community in every part of the country who are coping with unique situations, but also with common problems.
	As we face this responsibility, we should not make the mistake of believing that Government or Parliament have all the solutions. We must listen to and learn from individual carers and the organisations who are their voice. I want to pay tribute to national organisations such as Carers UK, Crossroads, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Partners in Policymaking, the Children's Society and all the organisations that are part of the Every Disabled Child Matters coalition.
	I also want to pay tribute to the hundreds of self-help groups, voluntary organisations and local authorities up and down the country that support carers and enable them to have the best possible quality of life, as well as the individual heroes who exist in every hon. Member's constituency. In my own constituency, Geraldine Green is a remarkable person. As a grandma, she is full-time carer to grandchildren who have autism. As a social entrepreneur, she runs Hurdles, a voluntary organisation offering a range of support services to disabled children and their families. In her spare timeI use the term jokinglyalong with a team of volunteers, she has just opened a caf with the aim of providing training and work opportunities for young people with learning disabilities so that they can develop the skills and confidence necessary to secure a job of their own. Then there is Jill Pay, whom the Chancellor and I met when we launched the new deal for carers recently. She looks after her daughter Rowan, who has severe learning disabilities, and is supported in doing so by her eldest daughter, Camilla. Geraldine, Jill and Camilla's spirit, tenacity, courage and flair are inspirational, but their frustration and anger at the system must be a wake-up call to us all.
	In many ways, that frustration is summed up by a mother I met recently in my constituency. She has a son with autism, and two things that she said stuck out, and could have been articulated by far too many carers: Why don't the professionals seem to understand that I am the expert on my son? and Why do I have to shout before anybody listens?
	As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said, it is estimated that the country has6 million carers overallarguably, about one in every street. Given the likely consequences of changes in our society, that figure will become one in every family. As the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of us are likely to become carers. It will no longer be somebody else's concern.

Jeremy Hunt: The Minister has talked about the number of people who are likely to become carers. Can he explain why his Department is currently refusing to fund the inclusion of a question about caring responsibilities in the 2011 census? Such a question was included in the previous census. Many carers organisations are worried, however, that if his Department is not willing to put up the funds for the same question to be asked in the 2011 census, we will not know how many carers society has.

Ivan Lewis: In a moment I shall talk about demographic change, which is the reason why, in the next two decades, the vast majority of people in this country will become carers. Of course I have sympathy with constituents who have strong passionate feelings about their areas, but neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for South-West Surrey made one policy or spending commitment during their contributions to the debate. Theirs were all fine warm words, many of which I, as the Minister responsible in the Department of Health, would have no problem with. But they made not one extra spending commitment in relation to the needs of carers.

Hywel Francis: As chair of the all-party parliamentary carers group, I want to record my thanks to the official Opposition for initiating the debate and giving us an opportunity to showcase the tremendous advances achieved by this Labour Government over the last decade. Will my hon. Friend reiterate his warm response to what I said last week in congratulating the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government on establishing, in that Government, a carers' championan example that we should follow here in England?

Ivan Lewis: If there is a vacancy for such a role in this Government, I think that my hon. Friend would be an excellent candidatealthough it is not for me to hand out ministerial appointments, especially at this stage in the political cycle. On the basis of his personal experiences of caring, he has been a tremendous champion and advocate of change in our society, to transform the experiences of carers in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Over time, the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, which he promoted, will make a massive difference to the opportunities available to carers. He should be very proud of the difference that he has made.
	I must make some progress, as Back Benchers will want to make their own contributions. I was talking about the changes taking place in our society, to which we have a duty to respond. The demographic realities are that people are living longer, which will continue, and that disabled people want not just longer lives but full lives. There have been medical advances too. Another fact, which is often missed, is that people are demandingnot being forcedto remain in their own homes rather than going into institutions. The implication of that for the role of carers is profound, and will become even more profound.
	We must also recognise that carers are people first, with their own needs, aspirations and fears. They need help with caring, butI do not think that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey mentioned this oncethey want a life as well, and public policy should reflect that.
	I have already referred to the tremendous progress made in recent years. I am not suggesting that the Conservative Government did nothing, but we were presented with a pretty blank piece of paper in termsof the commitment that Government were willing to make to carers historically. We introduced the 1999 strategythe Prime Minister's strategywe awarded an annual carers grant to every local authority, and we produced the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. I referred earlier to the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act and the right to request flexible working.
	Pension credit legislation is going through Parliament, and a tremendous package of supportwhich is overduewas announced several weeks ago, involving a partnership between the Treasury, the Department for Education and Skills and my Department. That will significantly enhance the support available to disabled children and their families in every community. There will be many more short breaks and much more respite care, along with lead professionals, and a focus on a transition that is often difficultthe cliff edge between being a child or a young person and becoming an adult.
	We are now about to make a reality of our announcement of a couple of months ago of a new deal for carers. The national telephone helpline will mean that carers have easy, ready access to information focused on their needs. Carers tell us that they want to be able to make a call or to log on to the web and to know that they will end up in the right place and have their needs met.

Ivan Lewis: Carers want to be signposted in an appropriate way, as my right hon. Friend says.
	We are developing the expert carers programme, so that carers in every community have the training and support to develop the skills and confidence not only to be able to look after the person they are caring for, but to engage on a far more equal footing with professionals. There is also the emergency respite care fund. Carers themselves have told us that one of the greatest difficulties they face is a sudden caring breakdown, a sudden difficulty with the person they are looking after and a sudden need for emergency support. We will make further announcements later this week about the consultation. Over time, we want to bring about a system that is on their side, and which gives carers a life of their own. Issues have to be addressed.
	I was interested by the curious contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey on the question of information sharing, because he said that information could be shared so long as that happened only within a Department. But the first thing that carers say to us is, We want a holistic, cross-Government approach. Each one of us is a person, not a series of compartments as represented by Government or local delivery mechanisms. To suggest that the Conservative party is happy for electronic data to be shared, but only if it is within a Department, misses the point and fails to listen to what carers tell us about their priorities.
	I turn to the question of social care, which is massively important to the quality of carers' lives. We need a new consensus for a new settlement. We must recognise that society is changing so rapidly that we need a new balance between the state and the responsibilities of families and individuals. That settlement must be fair but it must also be sustainable. We must be clear that resources will always be finite. The question is: what, on a long-term basis, is both just and sustainable in terms of funding a social care system that is fit for purpose to meet the challenges of demographic change?
	In the context of changing the social care system, we also need to transfer a lot of power and control from organisations to those who use services and to their families through individual budgets, direct payments, person-centred planning and self-directed support. We need to move away from a system in which professionals determine the life chances of individuals, and transfer a maximum amount of power and control to those who use services, and to their families.
	I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who has worked alongside me on that agenda in making tremendous progress for disabled people in our society. She has not only served as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people but has been the champion of disabled people across Government, and she has continued to make the point that every Department must fulfil its responsibility.
	I now move on to the national health service. It seems that we have to do more in terms of access to general practitioners. They are often the gatekeepers. for carers, they are the trusted professionals. We need to ensure that in future GPs give far greater priority to identifying carers and ensuring that they are referred to the right service and to the place where they will have their needs met.
	As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, we must also acknowledge that the health of carers often deteriorates as a consequence of fulfilling caring responsibilities. That has implications for the NHS. Carers, more than most, require a truly integrated approach at local level between local government, the local national health service and the voluntary sector. We need services in local communities to be much more joined up. We need to move from a notion of partnership to one of integration, and to recognise that the prize that we now seek is not simply a synergy between the NHS and social care. In order to protect the health and well-being of carers, the NHS, all the services local government commissions and provides, and the voluntary sector need to harness their resources efficiently and in a joined-up way.
	Employment is another issue. Some carers might want to combine their caring responsibilities with having a job, and others who have been out of the labour market for a long period might want to have the chance to re-enter it. We must look into what support we might give them. Education and training are important factors.
	It is right that the system draws a distinction between adult services and children's services, but we need to ensure that that does not lead to young carers being failed. There is a danger of that happening. We know from evidence and researchand from some powerful and sad recent storiesthat there are many hidden cases of children and young people fulfilling caring responsibilities for a parent. A child or young person should not do that alone without having a lot of support. That affects their education, and their chance to do the things that children and young people ought to do. Society and Government need to take a fresh look at the support that we offer young carers, not only through our Department but in the education system.
	The hon. Member for South-West Surrey asked about the benefit system. I agree that we need to examine benefits, taxation and pensions in an integrated way. The key issue here is the financial impact of caring on the carer and their family. In no circumstances should a carer have to live in poverty as a consequence of having made the choice to care.
	In an Adjournment debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who has now left the Chamber, raised the issues of leisure, friendships and social relationships. Many carers tell us that they suffer isolation and loneliness. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that carers have access to leisure opportunitiesto a social life, to friendships and to informal networks.
	The reform of public services is not only about addressing leadership, management, targets and organisational changes. We must not forget that pressure from those who use services and who fight and campaign for them is also important. That is why having a voice, information and advocacy are crucial. We must ensure not only that we change public services by reforming systems, but that we transfer a lot more power and opportunity to influence public services at the local level to those who use them, and to their families.
	The support we give to carers will define the character of our country as we face up to future challenges. We must care for them and be compassionate, and we must empower and support them so that they can maximise the quality of life of the loved one or friend whom they are caring for. Carers are usually better placed than the state to offer appropriate care, but they need the state to be on their side. They need a state that is active and enshrines rights in law, that provides accessible and quality information, advocacy and support, that personalises public services so that respect and dignity are at their heart, and that ensures that choosing to care does not mean giving up one's own life.
	As a result of demographic change, medical advances and changing expectations, the needs of carers will become more, not less, important in the future. Caring will ask new questions of every family and community, of the state and the voluntary sector, of the husband and the wife, and of the son and the daughter. This Government will provide leadership and ensure that carers are at the heart of a new contract with the people, so that the system is on their side and they can have a life of their own. To make that aspiration a reality is the prize, and it must become a shared mission.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome the chance to debate these issues today, at the beginning of carers week. Although there has been a little bit of acrimony, it is fairly obvious from the speeches of the Minister and of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) that there is a genuine will to do something, so I do not intend to make many party political points this evening.
	At the beginning of carers week, we are obviously celebrating the contribution that carers make to society. The Carers UK website published today the results of a survey that it carried out on behalf of 3,500 carers, who are probably fairly representative of the 6 million out there. The results highlighted the negative impact that the role of carer can have on a carer's relationship with their partner. Some 66 per cent. said that their relationship had suffered, and 60 per cent. said that they had little quality time. Interestingly, when they did have such time, 21 per cent. used it to catch up on sleep, so it is clear that other things suffer, too. Importantly, nearly two thirds63 per cent.felt a loss of identity.
	For many people, caring is a long-term commitment, so it is worrying to note that three quarters of carers have not had a regular break from caring in the previous 12 months, and that 38 per cent. have not had a single day off in the last 12 months. I will be kind and concede that the Government have put 25 million toward respite care, which was mentioned in an earlier intervention. That is of course very welcome, but it is targeted at emergency respite care only. We have to look at ways of freeing up money to make sure that people have regular access to respite. As constituency MPs, we have all probably had people coming to see us saying, I could cope if only I knew that I was going to get regular time off at some point in the future. Services are so stretched that even if time off is bookedof course, booking time off has an impact on people's lives because they cannot therefore be spontaneous; they have to sort out their social lives weeks, if not months, aheadit is often cancelled at the last moment or changed because an emergency has arisen involving someone with a greater need. Carers realise that there are people with greater needs, but it is difficult if we cannot honour even small commitments.
	In a trial on the Isle of Wight, carers received regular respite every few months. Respite care was always with the same nursing home, so the staff got to know the individual concerned and the carer got to know the people in whose care their loved one was being entrusted. The system seemed to work very well. If people feel that they are being treated as human beings and can have a regular break, they can carry on caring for longer. Some work needs to be done on the economicsperhaps as part of the strategybecause we do not really know the answers at the moment. That system seems like a good thing, but perhaps some pilots are called for properly to assess the long-term benefit.
	The survey to which I referred also looked at carers' financial situation. The Minister rightly made the point that nobody should be financially worse off because they have caring responsibilities, but the reality is that 67 per cent. said that they were, and 28 per cent. said that they felt unable to support the family properly. One in five carers is forced to give up work, but many of them are missing out on the benefits, pensions and practical support that is available. Here, there is something of a double whammy. As has been pointed out, caring is a full-time occupation. Many people who suddenly acquire these responsibilities do not also have the time or energy to access the very complex benefits system and to work out what they are entitled to. As has also been pointed out, even if they did have the time, the system is complex, inconsistent and bureaucratic.
	According to estimates, carers actually save the economy 57 billion each year, but carer's allowance is still very low at 48.65 a week. Rates of unclaimed benefit also remain high. Although in theory, part of the problem is being tackled, in practice, carers are not getting the little to which they are entitled. I agree that there must be a wholesale review of the carers benefit system, including the provision that is available to retired carers. That is another anomaly that must be reviewed, and I am sure that during the review, it will be brought to the Minister's attention time and again.
	The anomaly for young carers is that they cannot claim benefits if they take part in education for21 hours a week or more. By young carers, I mean young adults who may wish to take part in some education. The anomaly is a disincentive to young carers, because they do not have the resources to carry on furthering their education or training, and if they do not take the opportunity when most of their peers do so, they could be locked into a lifetime of social exclusion.

Sally Keeble: I will be brief, because I recognise that other people want to contribute to the debate. I welcome the debate and the remarks made by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). It is always the case that bureaucracy needs to be simplified. However, to make that an end in itself is limiting. It is also true to say that the issue is partly about the nature of the society in which we live, the kind of society we want and the importance of supporting people so that they can look after their families in their own homes, which is obviously right. People will always look after their families, relatives and neighbours in quite remarkable circumstances. For generations, peoplean awful lot of them womenhave looked after their family members at great sacrifice to themselves. Part of the challenge faced by the Government is how to make sure that people are able to act as carers with dignity and support and without running themselves ragged in the process.
	The Government have done a great deal in this respect and two areas have not been highlighted enough. First, there is the carers supplement to pension credit. That is enormously important because it deals with the anomaly that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out in relation to people who, post-retirement, are suddenly deemed not to be carers anymore and with the difficultly implicit in the carers benefit system, which is that carers are recompensed for lost wages. The carers supplement to pension credit has been under-recognised. I also suspect that the pressure in relation to pension credit and means-testing has discouraged retired people who are carers from recognising that this important element of support exists.
	Secondly, there is the provision in the Pensions Bill for carers credits and for widening the scheme so that it is not linked just to certain restricted benefits. That will enable quite a number of people in my constituency, where there is a high level of participation in work, to feel a bit more confident about giving up full-time employment to take on caring responsibilities, without fearing that that will leave them without a pension in retirement. Those two points are important and are perhaps not sufficiently recognised.
	I want to comment on two areas of caring. Last Friday, in preparation for carers week, I spent time with some carers. Two of them were caring for spouses who were in ill health and a number of issues were raised about what happens when people's health fluctuates and the carer finds themselves falling in and out of recognised care. The other group of people who seem to have had little recognition and who do heroic work are grandparents who take on the care of their grandchildren. I spent some time with Tanya Kettleborough. She and her husband took on two granddaughters after the girls' mother horrendously abused and then abandoned them. Those two girls had the emotional difficulties of being abused and abandoned, and one of the girls was also left with profound physical disabilities because of the level and nature of the abuse.
	To an extent, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey was right: there is an issue about how much money carers get. In order to give her grandchildren a secure home, the grandmother had got a residence order, so she had forgone the opportunity of getting foster care payments, which would have given her an income of about 600 a week given the scale of the disabilities of one of the children. Instead, she got payments of about 370 for two weeks. She thus gave up about half her possible income, yet she said that she would do that again because it was what she wanted to do for her grandchildren. The care that she gives is astonishing. I had met the little girl before and I am sure that she has made much more progress in a couple of years with her grandmother than she would have done in residential care, which would have been the alternative option.
	While the grandmother said that this was not about the money and that she would do the same thing again, then came the buts. She wanted a new buggy for Shannon, the little child, because the child had outgrown her existing buggy and all the thrashing about had weakened it, meaning that it was no longer safe. In addition, the buggy did not have proper straps for the little girl, so the grandmother had to get some on eBay. As we all know, there are long waits for wheelchairs and buggies for disabled children. I think that the lack of buggy was down to one of the health providers.
	Padded walls were needed for the bedroom because the little girl would bang her head on the wall. Someone first said that they would pad all the wall and then that they would pad just around the bed. While that would be just about manageable, it had not been done. There was also no chair for the little girl, so she had to sit in her buggy indoors. While a chair had been loaned by social services, it was inappropriate and not big enough. A ramp was also needed to get the child out of the house in the buggy. That was down to the housing authority, although an occupational therapist was required to carry out an assessment and procure the ramp. The grandmother's real problems were not money, her ageshe was in her early-50s and had to give up work completely, although she had worked for her entire adult life, which obviously damaged her pension rightsher job security, or the fact that she was up all night with a little girl who could not sleep, but that she could not get the things that she needed, that there were waiting lists and that she did not know when the occupational therapist would come.

Jeremy Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), because I want to concentrate on people at the opposite end of the age spectrum to those that she was talking about when she left off her remarks. I shall talk a little about older carers. As we have heard, there are about 6 million carers in the UK, and about a quarter of them are over the age of 65. It is a staggering statistic that 8,000 of them are over the age of 90; I find that remarkable.
	Older carers face particular problems, some of which are obvious, and others of which are less obvious. Among the more obvious problems that they face, particularly if they are caring for someone with a physical disability, is the difficulty of managing the physical lifting as they become older. Secondly, older carers may have difficulties with fatigue, which begins to set in more easily, and becomes more difficult to recover from. Thirdly, other hon. Members have mentioned medical conditions, which often afflict the carers themselves; that problem is exacerbated among older carers. Less obvious are the financial problems, although they too have been mentioned, not least by the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
	On the finances of older carers, there is no doubt that the carer's allowance is, understandably, regarded as an income replacement measure, but when a person retires, they may lose that income, because it is offset against pension payments. An extra difficulty is that some carers have been forced to retire or stop working earlier than they otherwise would have done, so their pension payments are reduced and their pension income is therefore smaller. As others have said, it is still too complicated for people to get what is available. The carer's addition to the pension credit is not claimed by 63,000 carers who are entitled to it. That figure is too large. Older carers are the very people who are put off by the vast amount of paperwork, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), that must be completed if they are to obtain that income.
	Older carers are also put off by the need to ask for helpa point that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made. It is important to remember that when we are dealing with the over-65s, we are dealing with a proud generation. They do not enjoy asking for help. They have the admirable but completely counter-productive attitude that it is up to them, not the state, to look after their loved ones, so they do not claim helpboth with regard to respite and with regard to financial assistancewhen they should. The difficulty that the Government, and indeed any Government, face is that they must identify carers who do not identify themselves as being in need of help, and must none the less provide that help to them.
	In providing that help, carers' relationship with the agencies that ought to be in partnership with them to help provide care is crucial. It is important, particularly for older carers, that their relationship with social services departments is good, productive and a genuine partnership, but too often, that is not the case, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), has said. A good relationship with the social services department means that an older carer is more likely to ask for help when it is needed. A bad relationship means that it is less likely that that help can be asked for, and that may be because many older carers fear that if they go to social services and ask for help, they will be judged incapable of looking after their loved one, who will be taken into residential care against their wishes and the wishes of the carer. That must be addressed. The Minister himself said that far too often carers believe they have to shout loudly to obtain the services that their loved ones need. He is entirely right, and it is perhaps the most significant problem that many carers face and which they often identify. It is particularly acute among older carers. Far too often, the services that are available to carers and the people for whom they care are arranged for the convenience of the provider, not for the convenience and use of the person who utilises them. Surely, the assumption should be that it is the carer, who knows the individual best, who knows best, not that it is the state that knows best.
	Most people, as we all agree in this debate, would prefer their care to be delivered at home, in an environment with which they are comfortable and familiar. If that is to be achieved, we must all assist carers to deliver that care. Again, as we all agree, in future there will be many, many older carers, partly because of longer lifetimes, but partly because of other demographic changes. Indeed, it is far from inconceivable that someone looking after an aged parent is well past retirement age, so there is a whole new dimension to older carers' needs and responsibilities that we must address.
	I agree entirely that supporting carers is not just the right and decent thing to do but is economically prudent. If people providing care on a voluntary basis do not continue to do so, it is simply unsustainable for the taxpayer to pick up the entire burden. I hope very much that the Government and, indeed, any Government will continue to give older carers particular consideration in making their judgments.

Tim Loughton: The debate has been short, but concise and of high quality. It is a shame that more of the hon. Members who were present earlier for the Iraq debate were not in the Chamber to listen to the excellent representations that have been made. We are debating not an instant, but an ongoing experience for many millions of our constituents.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North(Ms Keeble) made a good point when she reinforced the consensus against bureaucracy and flagged up the caring responsibilities of many grandparents. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made a powerful demographic point about the ageing population. Representing a constituency like Worthing, I know about old carers, many of them well into their seventies, if not more, looking after even older charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) made a pertinent point about the particular challenges facing Alzheimer's sufferers. As somebody who has a large Alzheimer's Society branch in my constituency, I applaud the excellent support that it provides to carers. We have people in their mid-thirties now with Alzheimer'snot only are instances of the disease increasing, but it is affecting younger people.
	I will not repeat the comments that have been made about the number of carers6 million, or one in10 adultsor the cost to the state that is being saved. Some 20 per cent. of young carers look after parents or family members with a mental health problem. We are discussing not just physical disabilities. I shall focus my comments on young carers, because we have so far talked mostly about older carers. I welcome the legislation that has been introduced over recent years, and some of the Government's strategy, but still too many young carers tell us that they are not getting the help and support that they needan awful lot of warm words, but not enough firm action.
	Surely our responsibility as parliamentarians and the responsibility of the Government should be to do everything we can to remove the obstacles to caring and to make the job of carers much easier because they do the nation an enormous service. We need to make their access and entitlement to information much easier so that they do not have to spend so much of their time hunting for it. We must make the paperwork simpler and shorter. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) cited horrendous figures to illustrate the complexities of the benefits system.
	We must increase the availability of respite care and offer flexible respite care that can also be provided in the homes of the people being cared for. It is not just a question of sending somebody to a residential home. A little break can give a big boost to carers who have onerous responsibilities day in, day out. Above all, we must recognise and value the contributions of carers and provide flexibility. Caring is not a constantthe condition of a person who has a disability can go up and down so we need long-term and sustainable strategies. That is why, at the last election, we had in our manifesto certain commitments that would recognise the vital role played by informal carers.
	I said that I would concentrate on the role of the 175,000 young carers2 per cent. of children overall, including 18,000 children under the age of 15. That was starkly brought home last month when the Princess Royal Trust for Carers raised the case of Deanne Asamoah, the 13-year-old who died from a morphine overdose after caring for her terminally ill mother for four years, and the pressures of caring that brought her to that tragic end to her own life. Some 250,000 children in the United Kingdom live with a parent who engages in some form of substance misuse, and they often end up as carers as well.
	The Hidden Lives report produced last year by Barnado's shows that some young carers can go for years without requesting help. They are often excluded from medical discussions. One of the things that young carers mentioned to us is that when they are effectively providing nursing support to a family member, the doctor will exclude them from discussions, yet they are vital to providing that care and undertaking big responsibilities such as administering the drugs that may be prescribed. They suffer at school, and their social life and their health suffer. That is why I am glad that so many hon. Members mentioned the effect on carers themselves, not just the mechanics of caring for people with disabilities.
	I echo the tributes that have been paid to organisations such as Barnado's, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, the Children's Society's young carers initiative, NCH and Crossroads, and particularly to Jenny Frank, the programme manager at the Children's Society, who every year organises the young carers festival, which I have attended for most of the seven years that it has been held in Southampton, together with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Some years ago, at their own behest, they organised a parliamentary question time and invited MPs to go down there to answer questions. They invited us to go down again to report on the progress that has been made. I always feel slightly guilty at the lack of progress for young carers in too many cases, despite the warm words of many of us.
	That festival, Madam Deputy SpeakerI know that you have your own interest in itis a truly remarkable event. I defy anybody who goes there not to be overwhelmed by the enormous dedication of and sacrifices made by young people, many of whom are very young indeed. On 18 April this year, many of them came to Portcullis House, where I chaired a session with them in which they could, face to face with parliamentarians, give their checklist of the things that they wanted to happen to make their job easier. Let me quote some of the comments from that event and from previous young carers festivals. The things that they wanted to say to social services included:
	I want someone to teach me to cook proper meals for my mum when she's ill, not scrap meals.
	I want someone to be there when needed and when things get out of hand.
	To answer and return phone calls, and actually be on time and friendly and talk to me not just my parents.
	If they're not going to help they should say so straightaway.
	Things that they wanted to say to their teachers included:
	We cannot always manage our time to do homework and often it is necessary to miss school and so we fall behind, but it is NOT our fault.
	We might be tired because we've been busy at home.
	We might need time to have FUN!
	I could repeat such comments from all the other events that we have attended.
	Many young carers get into problems at school through no fault of their own. The cycle of truancy that can result can often be as follows. A child takes on a caring role and gets behind with work. They are late for school because they are looking after younger brothers and sisters, or they miss days when their family member is unwell. They are afraid of giving the real reasons, so they make up unconvincing excuses. They get detentions after school but cannot attend them because they have to get home. That leads to more trouble and worsening relationships with teachers, and it starts to become easier to stay at home where they feel valued. They miss out on their education, on their social life, and on their good health, which often means that they miss out on the career prospects that go with them.
	What is needed for young carers is not rocket science. They tell us that they need continuity of funding for young carers' projects so that they do not start and then stop because the money has run out. They need good projects such as the Brighton young carers outreach project. They need respite to be available and to be able to have a social life. They need to be able to get together with other young carers. They need to know where to go for help and to be able to get it without struggling. They need to be included in health decisions about their charges. Above all, they need understanding and flexibility at school, with a nominated teacher who appreciates the problems that go with caring. We need to look after the health, career and development of our young carers, not just the people they look after, and the same goes for adults. The state should be on their side and at their side, not in their way. We owe these people a debt of gratitude, and we owe it to them to make their job easier.

Anne McGuire: Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I too, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to recognise your own contribution to the support of carers over many years. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will not mind my saying that it is entirely appropriate that you are chairing tonight's debate.
	I welcome the opportunity to highlight the commitment of carers who, as Members on both sides of the House have said, put a degree of commitment and energy into their task that would put many of us to shame. Today's launch of carers week makes it entirely appropriate that we are discussing these issues.
	I echo what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), said when he opened the debate. The Government are justifiably proud of their record in extending support and opportunities to carers over the past 10 years, including the first national carers strategy in 1999. I believe that Governments should be judged not on their Green Papers and strategies but on their achievements. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health said, the Government not only produced a national strategy for carers shortly after taking office, but have introduced a raft of initiatives since then.
	At the heart of that strategy was the recognition that carers also deserve care and support. That did not previously exist. I thank the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), who led for the Opposition, for acknowledging some of the Government's achievements. Tangible policy changes have occurred. We introduced the carer's grant to support councils to provide breaks and services for carers in England. By 2008, that grant will have delivered 1 billion worth of additional support. We introduced new legislation to improve carers' rights and a new right to carer's assessment. Indeed, in 2004, Parliament extended the nature and scope of carer's assessment through the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act, which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, was a private Member's Bill.
	However, as the motion states, many carers do not currently work. The Government want carers to be able to work when their caring commitment allows them to do so. We all recognise that employment brings not only financial advantages but social contact, on which many carers miss out if they care full-time. That is why, in April this year, the Government extended the right to request flexible working to the majority of carers of disabled adults. Again, that was not even contemplated previously.
	I hope that hon. Members recognise that we have demonstrated our commitment to helping carers balance their caring responsibilities with their need and desire to work and engage in social activity.
	Let me pick up on a couple of points that hon. Members made. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) highlighted the importance of flexible working practices and I was delighted to hear the exampleI think it was of British Telecomthat she gave. She said that the company had introduced flexibility not only for specific categories of workers but across the piece. That will undoubtedly assist carers. I gently suggest to her that she needs to look again at the website from which she got the telephone number she mentioned because we cannot trace a Government helpline that is open only between the hours of 10 and 4 on two days a week. We suspect that it may be one of the many helplines that voluntary organisations have set up. If she gives us the telephone number, we will double-check that.

George Galloway: I have an interest in Pakistan. I hold the highest civil award that the country can bestow, the Hilal-i-Quaid-i-Azam, given to me at the end of the 1980s for my work for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan at the end of an earlier bout of military dictatorship supported at the time by the then British Government. I also hold the second highest civil award in Pakistan, the Hilal-i-Pakistan, given to me for my work on behalf of the rights of the people of Kashmir. Until the military overthrow of democracy in Pakistan, I worked closely with all the democratic parties in the country.
	It is worth establishing a time line. General Musharraf, as we used to call him when he seized power in a military coup in 1999before we began to call him President Musharraf, an office to which he appointed himselfcame to power having imprisoned and then exiled the democratic political leaders in the country. In 2002 he held a referendum, an extraordinary one even by the standards of eastern potentates, in which he won 97 per cent. of the vote. The referendum was described by Transparency International as blatantly rigged, and the accompanying parliamentary elections in 2002 were described in the same way by all international and disinterested observers. At that time Musharraf made a promise that he would cease to be chief of the army general staff, a promise on which he has reneged.
	In September 2006 Amnesty International issued a detailed report on human rights abuses in Pakistan, alleging that the Musharraf Government were responsible for violating
	a wide array of human rights.
	The alleged violations included torture, unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial execution, unlawful transfer of persons to the United States and other countries, and arbitrary arrests.
	That date, September 2006, is important. Two months later, in November 2006just over six months agothe British Prime Minister visited President Musharraf, and this is what he said. He paid tribute to General Musharraf for
	symbolising the future for Muslim countries the world over.
	I want the House to keep those words in its mind. The Prime Minister praised Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan, for
	symbolising the future for Muslim countries the world over.
	Let us see what has happened in Pakistan since the Prime Minister uttered those words. The chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, insisted on hearing cases of missing persons and objecting to the privatisation of a steel mill. I think we know who may have taken over; perhaps new Labour's biggest donor, Mr. Mittal, who has given millions of pounds to the Labour party. The chief justice would have none of it and was told by President Musharraf that he must resign. He refused to resign and, on 16 March, just three months after Prime Minister Blair held Musharraf as symbolising the future for Muslim countries, the chief justice was supported by demonstrations throughout the country by lawyers, civil society groups and Opposition parties, which were savagely assailed by General Musharraf's armed forces. That included the first of many attacks on independent television stations.
	On 26 April, the chief justice made a 26-hour journey by car from Islamabad to Lahore and was welcomed by vast crowds along the way. On 12 May, the Government of Sindh, a coalition Government of Musharraf's king's party and the Muttahida Quami Movement, led from London by a British citizen, Altaf Hussain, to whom I shall return, laid siege to the city. The main thoroughfares were blocked, lawyers and their supporters were attacked outside the Karachi Bar with batons and the MQM militants fired bullets indiscriminately into the peaceful demonstrators. Eleven members of the Pakistan Peoples party were killed, 10 members of the Justice Movement of Imran Khan, with whom I met today and who is meeting the Leader of the Opposition tomorrowI am not sure whether the Minister will find time in his busy schedule to meet Imran Khanwere wounded, as were scores of others. Last week, just seven months after the Prime Minister said that Musharraf symbolised the future for Muslim countries around the world, all independent television stations were closed down and a draconian ordinance on the press was introduced.
	Human Rights Watch, an organisation oft quoted approvingly by Her Majesty's Government, says that
	As president, Musharraf has arbitrarily amended the Pakistani constitution to strengthen the power of the presidency, marginalize elected representatives, and formalize the role of the army in government
	and claimed military impunity for abuses. It goes on:
	These abuses include extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests.
	In  The Guardian today, there is a story about how those independent television stations have been taken off the air and journalists fired upon. One television station, Aaj TV, was attacked for six hours in Karachi during the unrest accompanying the chief justice of Pakistan's visit to the city. The report states that a large demonstration was tear-gassed, bullets were fired, batons and rubber bullets were used, television stations were taken off the air and 52 bullets were fired into the television studio of Aaj TV.
	The US State DepartmentI quote it because the United States Government often act in synchronicity with our ownsays that the MQM, which is the power in Karachi,
	has been widely accused of human rights abuses since its foundation two decades ago
	and it goes on:
	In the mid-1990s, the MQM-A was heavily involved
	not alleged to be heavily involved
	in the widespread political violence that wracked Pakistan's southern Sindh province.
	Three Members of Congress, led by Joseph Biden, another man close to new Labour, wrote the following letter just a few days ago to Condoleezza Rice:
	Dear Secretary Rice...we have witnessed the spiral of civil unrest and harshly-suppressed protest in Pakistan...We ask that you publicly call for an immediate end to the violence, and urge the government of Pakistan to commit to holding free and fair elections by the year's end.
	Nothing less will be acceptable from the Minister this evening.
	Joe Biden and his fellow Senators say that President Musharraf's dismissal of the chief justice has sparked protests from tens of thousands,
	spearheaded by bar associations, and supported by moderate political parties and civil society organizations.
	They say:
	The violence in Karachi appears to show disturbing signs of collusion between MQM and government forces
	leading to the deaths and wounding of opposition party militants and other protestorsand they go on, and on. They say in the final paragraph:
	The national interests of the United States and of Pakistan are both served by a speedy restoration of full democracy to Pakistan, and by an end to state-sponsored intimidationoften violentof Pakistani citizens protesting government actions in a legal and peaceful manner. We urge you to make a public appeal to this end, and to raise these matters forcefully in your interactions with Pakistani government officials.
	Again, nothing less will be acceptable from the Minister when he addresses the House this evening.
	Following my discussions today with Imran Khan, I want to emphasise that my primary concern, and that of most Pakistanis living in Britain, is this: why is Altaf Hussain being allowed to conduct from a sofa in Edgware a terrorist campaign and a campaign of extortion of businesses and citizens in Sindh, and why was he given British citizenship? I would like the Minister to answer the following question tonight, and if he does not have the answer to hand I would like him to write to me to inform me of it: was Altaf Hussain ever refused British citizenship, and if he was, what changed between that refusal and the granting of citizenship to him? It is extraordinary that in the middle of a so-called war on terror there is such a bloody reign of terror in a major Pakistani cityand there are millions of Pakistanis who are citizens of our country. A terrorist cell is operating from Edgware in the form of the MQM. Every day, Altaf Hussain, a British citizen, addresses his puppets in Karachi, giving them instructions on how they should govern, including how they should handle peaceful demonstrations.
	The Minister smiles smugly. He might think that this is a small matter, but if this man, instead of being a stooge of Generalsorry, PresidentMusharraf and of a Government allied to his own, were a hook-handed, glass-eyed ranting mullah, he would at best already be in Belmarsh and at worst he would be on a plane being deported to the country from where he absconded from murder charges.
	This man is the godfather of Sindhhe is the godfather of Karachiand he is living high on the hog from the extortion of the citizens of Karachi. I really do not know why the Minister finds this funny. It is a serious matter. The question that must be answered is this: how long will the British Government tolerate this situation that is occurring under their noses? Citizenship was given to Hussain under this Government in 1999, and it is my belief that he was refused citizenship under the previous Administration. I want to know why he was given citizenship, and why he is being allowed to operate with impunity.
	Far from symbolising the future for the Muslim countries around the world, General Musharraf crystallises the problem which western Governments have in those countries. We tell people that we are invading countries in order to defend democracy and liberty, but we support dictators who crush democracy and liberty as long as they do so in concordance with western policy on other matters.
	The slogan, My enemy's enemy is my friend is a deeply flawed one, but the Government do not seem to have learned that. They did not read the novel Frankenstein to the end. Dr. Frankenstein created a monster, but he lost control of it because we cannot control monsters. Across the border in Afghanistan, we helped to create the monster of jihadism and Islamist fundamentalism that became bin Laden and became the Taliban, on the principle that my enemy's enemy is my friend. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we are finding in Iraq and to some extent in Palestine, our enemy's enemy is not always our friend. Sometimes, our enemy's enemy is worse than our enemy, and by allying ourselves with the former, making him our friend, we become complicit in the crimes that he commits.
	Nobody in the Muslim world can believe that this Government are really interested in democracy and liberty in the Muslim world, so long as they are kissing Colonel Gaddafi in the tent at Sirtethe same Colonel Gaddafi who brought down the Lockerbie airliner, we were told, with the deaths of hundreds of people; the same Colonel Gaddafi whom we said funded the IRA's bombing campaign in Britain through the '70s and '80s; the same Colonel Gaddafi whom we said shot down an English policewoman in a London square. Nobody can believe that Colonel Gaddafi deserves the kisses of the British Prime Minister. Nobody believes that Colonel Gaddafi has changedjust that he has changed sides.
	Nobody believes that General Musharraf really is the President of Pakistan, and to treat him as if he is is an insult to the hundreds of millions of Pakistanis living under the iron heel of his dictatorship, not to mention the Pakistanis living as citizens in Britain, many of whom have traditionally voted for the Minister's party. So I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he answers this debate. General Musharraf is a tyrant who is about to fall. I urge this Minister not to do as the now Lord Owen did in backing the tyrant Shah of Persia until the last moments before he fell. It was because of western support for tyrants such as the Shah until the last moments that the radicalisation of such as the Islamic revolution in Iran took place.
	My last words are these. Pakistan is a nuclear power. After Musharraf falls, no one knows who will replace him. Whose finger will be on the nuclear trigger in Pakistan once Musharraf falls? The Government would be doing Britain the favour that Biden and others are doing America by intervening now to distance themselves from this tyrant and to help the democratic forces come back to power in Pakistan.

Geoff Hoon: May I begin by extending the normal courtesies of the House to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) on securing tonight's debate, which he entitled Restoration of democracy in Pakistan? I am sure that everyoneincluding, I hope, the hon. Gentlemanwill join me in condemning the recent violence in Karachi and terrorist attacks in Pakistan that have killed and injured so many people. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extend my sympathies and condolences to those affected.
	As this House is aware, Pakistan is an important friend and ally of the United Kingdom. Sixty years after independence, the bilateral relationship between Pakistan and this country is as close as it has ever been. We are closely intertwined historically, culturally and politically. More than 800,000 British citizens living in the UK have Pakistani origins. What is perhaps less well known is that there are at least 80,000 residents in Pakistan with British nationality. About 150,000 people from each country visit the other country every year.
	Pakistan is at the heart of a range of the key international issues, including counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, counter-narcotics, migration and cross-cultural and cross-community relationships. These are all shared challenges, which we need to tackle together. The UK is grateful for the continuing co-operation on counter-terrorism that it receives from Pakistan, and the sacrifices that Pakistan has made in the border region with Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban and other criminal elements from crossing the border.
	This debate is, however, focused on the question of democracy, and I want to deal with a number of related issues in turn, the first of which is human rights. The Government welcome President Musharraf's commitment to promoting enlightened moderation. The recent reform of the Hudood laws was an important step forward in human rights and democracy in Pakistan. Ministers have consistently raised human rights questions with the Pakistani Government, welcoming their efforts on the women's protection Bill, for example. Follow-up by the British Govt detailed a number of our human rights concerns in Pakistan, and offered UK support on a range of connected issues.
	One of those issues was the effect of the blasphemy laws on religious minority groups. We have welcomed Pakistan's efforts to address that issue, and encourage further reform of discriminatory legislation. I am aware of the continuing problems faced by minority groups in Pakistan, such as the Christian community in the North-West Frontier Province. We continue to monitor closely the developments in these cases.
	Both bilaterally and together with our European partners, we continue to engage in dialogue with Pakistan on the issues of discriminatory legislation and the situation of minorities. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and we will continue to voice our concerns to the Government of Pakistan.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the related question of media freedom. I am aware of the new ordinance introduced on 4 June, giving greater powers to the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority. That ordinance was suspended on 6 June, although the hon. Gentleman did not mention that, and subsequently revoked. In response, EU Heads of Mission in Islamabad reaffirmed the great importance that the EU attaches to freedom of expression and of the media as a crucial element for a successful democratic process. They welcome the Government of Pakistan's decision to suspend the amendment and express their confidence that further steps will be taken to safeguard a political climate in which freedom of expression and of the media is respected, and is conducive to free and fair elections. Freedom of information is essential to economic and social development and stability, and we actively support the evolution of a free and fair press in Pakistan.
	On the issue of democratic institutions, in Malta in 2005, Commonwealth Heads of Government welcomed the progress that Pakistan was making in restoring democracy and rebuilding democratic institutions. It is important that Pakistan continue that transition. Strengthening democratic institutions and promoting freedom of expression are vital steps in countering extremism and promoting an environment of tolerance.
	The Department for International Development is working in partnership with Pakistan to help to develop its institutions and increase the accountability of the state to its citizens. That programme has four dimensions, which are public sector reform, representative government, access to justice and citizen participation. We also support major interventions underpinning the reform process in government. An important context for DFID's work is Pakistan's devolution reform, which was announced in March 2000 by President Musharraf. A distinctive feature is that it aims to deliver justice at the doorstep, including moving beyond public safety and the recognition of basic human rights to political and administrative justice. Other interventions include support to tax administration reform, reform of the Federal Bureau of Statistics, and a package of district level reforms in Faisalabad district.
	As the House is aware, when the Prime Minister visited Pakistan in November 2006, he announced a doubling of the UK's development programme for Pakistan. DFID is currently working on its new country assistance plan, which will include further support to Pakistan on good governance, institution building and empowerment.
	The UK looks to the Pakistan Government to ensure that the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections are held in a free and fair manner in which it is equally possible for all political parties to participate. The British Government welcomed the appointment of an independent election commissioner as an important first step towards those free and fair elections. We are supporting him and his team in their efforts to provide free and fair elections, and to strengthen the role of local election monitors. We call on the Government of Pakistan and the Election Commission to continue their work on voter registration.
	In January this year, the Department for International Development announced that it would be giving 3.5 million to support the electoral process in Pakistan. The money will be spent on a number of areas that are fundamental in ensuring a successful electoral process. They include voter registration, training of polling staff and party agents, voter education and ensuring maximum citizen participation in and oversight of the electoral process. The funds will also provide support for a group of international observers to give an objective analysis of the conduct of the elections.
	The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned President Musharraf's dual role as head of state and chief of army staff. The UK remains committed to the declaration made by Commonwealth Heads of Government in Malta in 2005, to which Pakistan also agreed, that until the two offices of head of state and chief of army staff are separated, the process of democratisation in Pakistan will not be irreversible.
	In conclusion, I emphasise the fact that the UK has a long-term commitment to Pakistan's future. We are closely linked and we share common goals: to defeat terrorism, to tackle extremism, and to share a peaceful and prosperous democratic future. For our part, the Government will continue to work with the Pakistani Government to achieve those goals.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes toEleven o'clock.